Saturday, May 10, 2008 John-john’s lawyer files motion citing DOJ’s ‘manifest error, prejudice’ against client
THE lawyer representing John Gregory “John-john” Osmeña wants the court to determine probable cause before deciding whether to arrest, arraign and hear the charge against the former Cebu vice governor.
In a 26-page motion, lawyer Edgar Gica yesterday reiterated his previous allegation that the justice department committed “manifest error, grave abuse of discretion and prejudice” when it charged Osmeña.
He cited Section 6 of the Rules of Court, which allows judges to “immediately dismiss (a) case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause.”
The case against Osmeña remains with the Regional Trial Court Criminal Division. It is scheduled for raffling on Monday. Following the raffle, procedure indicates that a warrant will be issued. Bail is set at P200,000.
Gica said there is no basis in charging Osmeña for allegedly coddling drug smugglers, adding that it isn’t even established who was behind the supposed importation.
“The narration of facts and circumstances contained therein is short of establishing that Osmeña had knowingly and willfully consented to the unlawful acts committed by (Michael) Cummings and/or (Dirk) Hultz,” Gica said.
“For one, these supporting affidavits and sworn statements do not even establish any unlawful acts provided for in Republic Act 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act),” he said.
Gica pointed out that the justice department’s basis in charging Osmeña was the testimony of two witnesses—Senior Supt. Primo Golingay and Senior Insp. Fritz Adolfo Macariola.
However, Golingay’s sworn statement only quoted the vice governor as thanking him for acceding to the meeting and that he understood the limitations Golingay faced regarding a transaction before the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
“It would be a conclusion of law if testimonies of Golingay and Macariola be the basis of implicating herein accused as a protector/coddler of Michael Cummings and/or Dirk Hultz,” Gica said.
Other than their testimonies regarding a meeting held at the Pan Pacific Hotel, there is “no real evidence as to the actual presence of Osmeña and the nature of his alleged conversation with Senior Supt. Golingay.”
Gica, in a previous interview, wondered what evidence the justice department had in charging the former vice governor last May 2 over his supposed involvement in the attempt to smuggle P3 billion worth of pseudoephedrine to Cebu in 2004.
Consignment
The shipment, Gica said, was consigned to a Michael Cummings, with the address of Coastside Ventures Inc., and not to Osmeña.
But it was the vice governor who was criticized before the media and investigated by the National Bureau of Investigation, PDEA and the justice department.
He was dragged into the mess when information was released to media that his former staff members—Joebert Cuesta, Ma. Rowena Roldan and Rorela T.
Villegas—were the incorporators of Coastside Ventures.
Cleared
Cuesta, Roldan and Villegas were eventually cleared in the 26-page resolution prepared by State Prosecutors Archimedes Manabat, Juan Pedro Navera and Irwin Maraya and approved by State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño.
Based on the resolution, the complaint against the staff members “seriously lacked probable cause.”
In yesterday’s pleading, Gica said this wasn’t the only example of how Osmeña was dragged into the mess that, incidentally, broke out immediately after he submitted his candidacy for the position of Cebu governor.
Gica noted that the PDEA, at the height of its investigation, sent the subpoenas for Cuesta, Roldan and Villegas to their home address even though they worked at the Office of the Vice Governor.
The subpoenas for Cummings and Hultz, on the other hand, both non-government employees, were sent to Osmeña’s office at the Provincial Capitol. (KNR)
