Bella invokes privacy, opposes USB viewing

Thursday, April 28, 2011

THE defense panel in the kidnapping with homicide charge against Bella Ruby Santos and Ian Charles Griffiths questioned the scheduled court viewing of two items taken from Santos’s house on March 4.

“We are opposing that. That would be prying into the privacy of our clients,” said Anna Luz Cristal, the defense’s lead counsel.

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

Cristal said they were “sure” the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) 7 “tampered with and inserted pictures there (a USB flash drive) to suit their purpose.”

The Task Force Ellah Joy will leave it to the court to decide on Santos’s request.

Procedures

Senior Supt. Patrocinio Comendador Jr., task force spokesperson, said there are some investigative procedures that are not for public viewing—without specifically referring to the videos stored in a USB found in Santos’s home.

Santos, one of the suspects in the abduction and killing of six-year-old Ellah Joy Pique last Feb. 8, earlier said she is against the public viewing of the USB because it contains personal videos involving her and her boyfriend Griffiths.

“This is going too far. Search warrant lang ang issue kay Judge (Meinrado) Paredes, wala pa tayo sa trial so there is no need to view or conduct forensic exam on the seized items. This is becoming a circus. Everybody can just file any motion, even those who are not parties to the case,” said Cristal.

Footage

Santos, in a “TV Patrol Central Visayas” report, admitted yesterday that a video camera seized from her house during the March 4 raid contained footage of her and Griffiths having sex.

She reiterated that the scheduled viewing of the USB and the video camera violates her right to privacy.

Rameses Villagonzalo, the defense’s collaborating lawyer, formally entered their opposition to the court viewing of seized items, by filing an omnibus motion asking Judge Paredes to cancel the scheduled viewing of the USB and the video camera tomorrow.

He said Santos’s USB contains “very private and personal matter” that’s better “left unseen.”

Reconsideration

Villagonzalo also requested Paredes, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch 13, to reconsider his April 19 order granting the police’s motion to conduct forensic examination on the two items.

The defense’s motion came as Judge Paredes issued an amended order retaining the empty porn CD covers and assorted CDs, which were also seized from the house in Naga, Cebu.

Instead of the six items, Paredes earlier ruled the forensic exam would be limited only to the USB and the video camera.

Paredes granted the motion filed by Inocencio dela Cerna and Glenn Condor, counsels for the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) 7, to allow a forensic examination on some of the seized items.

Integrity

Police said the forensic exam is “to ensure the integrity” of the evidence.

But in their motion, Villagonzalo said the integrity of the USB and video camera is “already compromised and destroyed.”

“It is none of anybody’s business to watch the contents of said USB,” said Villagonzalo.

Santos “has been humiliated greatly by the fabrications of the CIDG, and then all the more she will be humiliated beyond repair if her love-making with Griffiths would be shown in public, which clearly under the present circumstances is unnecessary and uncalled for,” said Villagonzalo.

Villagonzalo also asked Judge Paredes to allow forensic expert Dr. Raquel Fortun, whom the defense engaged, to view all items found inside the body of Ellah Joy, 6.

Citing Section 21, Rule 119 (exclusion of the public) of the Rules of Court, Judge Paredes said the “judge may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during the trial is offensive to decency or public morals.”