Raymart, Claudine suffer legal setbacks

MANILA, Philippines - Celebrity couple Raymart Santiago and Claudine Barretto suffered two setbacks yesterday in connection with the cases involving their May 6, 2012 brawl with columnist Ramon Tulfo and the resulting conflict with Tulfo’s three brothers.

The Pasay City prosecutor’s office recommended the filing of slight physical injuries and grave coercion charges against Santiago and his friend, Eduardo Atilano, for inflicting injuries on Tulfo during the brawl at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.

Also yesterday, a Quezon City court denied a motion for reconsideration by Santiago and Barretto appealing for the reversal of its earlier order dismissing a petition for a writ of amparo filed against Tulfo’s brothers Erwin, Raffy and Ben.

Assistant State Prosecutor Teresita Punzuelo told The STAR that she set bail at P12,000 each for Santiago and Atilano after she found probable cause to file the charges.

In a seven-page resolution issued yesterday, Punzuelo cleared Barretto, saying she did not participate in hitting or inflicting injury on Tulfo. She said the actress only reacted to defend her person when she was physically hurt.

The assistant city prosecutor also dismissed charges of attempted homicide filed against the three since she was not convinced that there was an attempt to kill Tulfo. 

As for the oral defamation charges, Punzuelo noted that to make the remarks defamatory, the alleged utterances should be heard by a third person. Tulfo failed to submit evidence to prove that the remarks were made and heard, she said.

No authority

In a 10-page resolution, Regional Trial Court Branch 219 Judge Maria Filomena Singh said the court does not have the authority to issue the writ in favor of the Santiago couple.

The resolution sustained the arguments raised by Erwin’s lawyer, Nelson Borja, who stressed that Santiago and Barretto are not entitled to government protection under the writ since they are not victims of human rights abuses.

The court cited the rule on the writ that states that it “shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.”

“There can thus be no valid argument against this court’s finding that the instant case is not covered by the rule on the writ of amparo and that this court does not have the authority to issue the writ in favor of the petitioners,” said the resolution.

The motion for reconsideration was filed after Singh denied on Aug. 20, 2012 an earlier petition of the Santiago couple asking for a writ of amparo.

The couple asked for police escorts and an order for the Tulfos to “cease and desist from further threatening the life, liberty and security of the petitioners and their family.”

The case stemmed from the alleged threatening remarks the Tulfo brothers uttered on their television show on May 7, 2012. The supposed threats were made a day after the couple figured in an altercation with their elder brother.

Separate grave threats charges were filed against Erwin, Ben, and Raffy at the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 38.

Meanwhile, Singh also denied the couple’s motion for voluntary inhibition and Borja’s motion to show cause why petitioners should not be cited for contempt. In dismissing the motion for inhibition, the judge said that she was acting in the interest of all parties to ensure the timely resolution of the controversy.

“Ironically when a judge resolves a matter speedily, he or she is suspected of having acted for some corrupt motive yet when a judge fails to act on a matter seasonably he or she is pilloried for being incompetent, inefficient and inept. Judges are damned if they do and damned if they don’t,” she said in the resolution.