Arraignment of police, military officers in 'Morong 43' case deferred

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan Seventh Division deferred the scheduled arraignment Wednesday of military and police officers involved in the alleged illegal arrest of 43 health workers in Morong, Rizal in 2010.

 

The court said it has yet to resolve the motion of the respondents who earlier prayed for the dismissal of their cases.

 

The arraignment was reset to June 29.

 

This marked the second time that the arraignment of the seven military and police officials was postponed by the court.

 

In their joint motion filed last March, the respondents retired Army Lt. Gen. Jorge Segovia, retired Army Maj. Gen. Aurelio Baladad, Brig. Gen. Joselito Reyes, Col. Cristobal Zaragoza, Police Superintendents Marion Balonglong and Allan Nobleza and Police Chief Inspector Jovily Cabading said the cases against them must be junked as they were supposedly defective in form.

 

The respondents are facing eight counts each of violation of Republic Act 7438 or “An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as Well as The Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers, and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof”.

The cases stemmed from the respondents alleged refusal to allow the arrested health workers, dubbed the “Morong 43”, to confer with a lawyer while they were in detention.

 

The health workers were arrested on February 6, 2010 under the suspicion of being communist rebels undergoing training on explosives.

 

The DOJ withdrew the charges against the Morong 43 in December 2010 following the order of President Benigno Aquino III.

 

The Morong 43 later bared that they were tortured by police and military officers in their 10 months in jail. The Commission on Human Rights, in 2015, concluded that the health workers had been tortured. The commission said it found “abrasions and contusions in the different parts of their bodies, like wrists, forearms and head, which corroborated their account that they were blindfolded and handcuffed tightly for a long period.”

 

In their motion to quash, the respondents said the criminal informations against them are “duplicitous for alleging more than a single offense”.

 

The respondents pointed out that while the title caption of the cases charges them of violation of Section 4 (a) RA 7438 which refers to the arresting officials' failure to inform the detainees of their rights and to provide them with a competent public lawyer if they cannot afford one, the nature of the allegation, as contained in the body of the charge sheets supposedly falls as violation of Section 4 (b) of the same law.

 

Section 4 (b) of RA 7438 refers to the arresting officers' act of preventing the detainees from conferring with a lawyer, an immediate family member or a medical practitioner, priest or any religious minister.

 

“This is a violation of the right of all the accused to be informed of the true nature and the true cause of the accusations against them,” the joint motion read.

 

“In sum, this infirmity is fatal and renders the duplicitous Informations susceptible to quashal,” it added.