What a funny joke it turned out to be when Atty. Danilo Pilapil, lawyering for a detained client, ended up being arrested and detained himself.
The news lead stated that he had been arrested for "threatening to file criminal charges against the policemen if they will not release his client who was detained for a traffic-related case". But wait, it's a fixed legal verity, both in written law and common law nations, that any "threat" to file a court case isn't an actionable offense of threat. In short, could traffic police chief Antonio Bayarcal be indictable for unlawful arrest under Art. 269 of the Revised Penal Code, and for unlawful detention?.
Granting arguendo that Atty. Pilapil could have been overly aggressive in his advocacy, and perhaps tauntingly getting on the policemen's nerves beyond tolerance, it wasn't enough justification to be that mad, as to put the lawyer under arrest. Perhaps, it would have been the better part of prudence if the irked PNP officer pursued an administrative remedy with the IBP for unethical conduct or violation of professional ethics.
Atty. Pilapil must have been so bellicosely insistent for his client's release from detention. When he tendered his letter that police officer Bayarcal refused to receive, and jeering Insp. Bayarcal for his refusal, Pilapil dug in haughtily: "Ang dili modawat niining suwat mga ignorante". And this led Insp. Bayarcal's anger to explode, and placed Atty. Pilapil under arrest and detention for "oral defamation" with regard to the "ignorante" reference.
One basic question is: Does the conditional reference of "ignorante" constitute oral defamation or slander? If so, was it a valid ground to arrest, handcuff, and detain Atty. Pilapil?
Given the circumstances when the conditional aspersion of "ignorante" could arise, it only constituted light oral defamation, as defined in Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code. It being so, it's punishable with Arresto Menor (1-30 days imprisonment); thus, governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. And no arrest was called for, and no bail required.
Without admitting the statement as slanderous per se, there's still the doubtful element of certainty or definitiveness as "ignorante" may only lie if "they refuse to receive the letter". And another, why did Bayarcal refuse to receive Atty. Pilapil's letter? Could it be a typical mutual arrogance and mutual disrespect? "Ang gulpe ug ang bun-og", as in a collision of hubris?
The PNP officers being presumed knowledgeable, why was Bayarcal precipitate in handcuffing Atty. Pilapil and detaining him? By the way, was he apprised of his rights under the Miranda doctrine?
On alleged later remark of the PNP lawyer of possible obstruction of justice against Atty. Pilapil, pray tell, where does it lie? He might only be tempting his compañero Pilapil to repeat on him the same utterance. As to administrative proceedings with the Supreme Court through the IBP for disciplinary action, well, that sounds procedurally sensible as earlier hinted.
You know, lawyering is never a dull profession. The trial exploits of real legal luminaries in history, like, Clarence Darrow, Sen. Stephen Arnold Douglas, , et al., or the dramatic court sagas in fiction, say, of Perry Mason and company, have always been favorite readings… In local legal practice, few trial practitioners have excelled; one was the late Atty. Amadeo (Matoy) Diola Seno, whose forte at cross-examination, and as first-rate law professor of no compare, have been held in high esteem.
But foremost, Matoy's advocacy for his clients, whether paying ones or pro bono, always deserved his 100% advocacy. Like Perry Mason, he even cut corners for his client's interest, sometimes putting his person and honor at risk. One recalls this because it was Matoy's memory that came to mind upon coming across Atty. Pilapil's fealty to his client.
* * *
Email: lparadiangjr@yahoo.com