Friday, August 31, 2007 Yongco prosecutors ask court to reconsider junking of case
THE prosecution in the murder of lawyer Arbet Sta. Ana Yongco asked Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Bienvenido Saniel Jr. to reconsider his earlier decision granting the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the case against Master Sgt. Heracleo Rallestan and Nestor Carrol.
The prosecution panel filed their motion for reconsideration after the Department of Justice panel of prosecutors gave them the go signal to do so.
In their motion, the prosecution argued that the court gravely erred in ruling that there was no conspiracy between accused Michel Favila Sr., Rallestan and Carrol.
The three were suspects in the brutal murder of Yongco in October 2004. Yongco was the private prosecutor of the parricide case against Philippine Benevolent Missionaries Association (PBMA) supreme leader Ruben Ecleo Jr.
Jurisprudence
They also argued that “the court erred in relying on piecemeal rulings of existing jurisprudence, which if taken singly and collectively are inapplicable to the instant case.”
Moreover, they believe that assuming there was no conspiracy among the accused, the case against Rallestan and Carrol should not have been dismissed because evidence show that they are at the very least liable as accomplices to the crime.
“The errors of this honorable court as stated above are not mere reversible errors of judgment but are errors of jurisdiction upon which double jeopardy will not attach, as the first jeopardy has been validly terminated,” read the motion of the prosecution.
Private prosecutors Ramon Duyongco, Liza Corro, Manuel Monzon, Democrito Barcenas, Thelma Jordan and Geraldine Jorda said that in making the ruling granting the demurrer, Judge Saniel did not consider and assess aspects of the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the whole of the testimony of accused-turned-state witness Eddie Ardita.
‘Conspiracy’
“It must be remembered that all the accused, plus Ardita, worked as a group from start to finish of the operation, each doing his particular role. They grouped when Favila and Ardita arrived at the acacia tree near the crime scene, left together after the shooting and regrouped in the house in Talamban,” the motion read.
“All in all, the execution of the crime was simply but carefully carried on: Favila as the gunman, Rallestan and Carrol acted as back-ups and lookouts to ensure smooth execution of the murder and Ardita was the driver of Favila. Under the law and jurisprudence on conspiracy, there was no escaping that Rallestan and Carrol are principals by direct participation being conspirators together with the gunman, Michel Favila,” read the prosecution’s motion.
They manifested that there was community of design between Favila, Rallestan and Carrol, as shown by their acts and interactions during the incident.
Jurisdiction
They also explained that double jeopardy will not apply in the instant case because the rule admits exceptions, such as when the right of the state and the private complainant to due process is violated, when the trial held was a sham and when the trial court has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In an order dated Aug. 8, Saniel said the evidence presented by the prosecution, including those of state witness Ardita, failed to show that Favila, Carrol and Rallestan planned together and agreed to kill Yongco.
“What the evidence seems to have established is only the mere presence of Carrol and Rallestan at the scene of the crime.
There is no proof whatsoever showing that they actively participated or performed an overt act evincing that they joined Favila,” Saniel said in his order. (KNT)
