Court issues injunction on Gatdula probe

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

A MANILA court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Justice department from proceeding with its probe on former investigation bureau director Magtanggol Gatdula, who was allegedly involved in the kidnapping of a Japanese woman last year.

In an 11-page resolution, Judge Felixberto Olalia of the Manila Regional Trial Court branch 8 granted Gatdula's request to indefinitely stop the Department of Justice (DOJ) from investigating him on the ground that his case has already been prejudged by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and President Benigno Aquino III.

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

"Considering the events which transpired, it would seem that the said prejudgment resulted in violation of the 'sub judice' rule, which ‘restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice," Olalia ruled.

At the same time, the court enjoined respondents De Lima, Justice Undersecretary Francisco Baraan III, Assistant Secretary Zabedin Azis and Quezon City Prosecutor Donald Lee from transmitting any report related to the Ohara case, to other government agencies, including the Office of the Ombudsman.

Olalia issued the injunction after the lapse of the 20-day TRO extension that he issued to stop the conduct of preliminary investigation on Gatdula and his alleged cohorts.

"Respondents are further restrained from doing, threatening, procuring or suffering to be done acts or transactions which are detrimental or prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner," the court said.

The RTC gave merit to the evidence presented by Gatdula consisting of video tapes of interviews of de Lima and Aquino supposedly showing prejudgment on Gatdula's case and alleged violation his constitutional right to due process when she ordered a fact-finding investigation in view of the abduction and serious illegal detention of Japanese Noriyo Ohara last October.

The Baraan-led fact-finding panel reported that there is sufficient evidence linking Gatdula to the criminal acts. The report, which was submitted to Aquino, resulted in the National Bureau of Investigation director's dismissal from service last January 19.

"A reading of the transcript of the interview (of de Lima) showed that there indeed is a prejudgment regarding the liability of the petitioner in the case of kidnapping of Ohara, and what remains to be determined is not the petitioner's involvement in the alleged crime, but merely the degree of his culpability," the court said.

On the issue that Gatdula's petition was already "moot and academic" with the revocation of the Department Order 47, Olalia maintained that the legal principle on the "fruit of the poisonous tree" or the presentation of illegally obtained evidence applied in this case.

The department order earlier sought further review and re-assessment of fact-finding panel's recommendations as far as the criminal culpabilities of the former NBI chief is concerned.

"To note, what is being sought to be enjoined at this moment is not the conduct of the preliminary investigation against the petitioner, but the use of the evidence obtained in the prior investigation by the DOJ as the same evidence in the preliminary investigation,” the court said.

Gatdula had asked the court to nullify the Department Orders 1007, s. 2011 and 47, s. 2012 for being unconstitutional since the evidence used by the DOJ panel in recommending the filing of charges against him was obtained illegally.

His lawyer Abraham Espejo explained that his client was invited in the fact-finding panel's investigation as a resource person and not as a respondent. However, the basis of the adverse recommendation of the DOJ panel was a product of a violation of Gatdula's right against self-incrimination.

Sought for comment, de Lima said she will seek reconsideration of the trial court’s ruling. She insisted that her action to order the conduct of a fact-finding investigation stemmed from her exercise of her administrative functions, in which the courts may not intrude.

“These affidavits exist and they exist independently of the fact finding investigation. So for us, there is no more bar to the preliminary investigation. When I created the fact finding panel, I was not exercising any judicial or quasi-judicial function, only administrative, because the Secretary of Justice in the first place does not have a judicial or quasi judicial function,” she said.

De Lima also pointed out that Ohara already executed a complaint-affidavit that supported the DOJ panel's report. (JCV/Virgil Lopez/Sunnex)