|
Saturday, July 29, 2006
General charged over role in failed coup
MANILA -- Military prosecutors on Friday served a charge sheet on former First Scout Ranger Regiment commander Danilo Lim, who faced a pre-trial investigation panel that will determine if he would undergo court martial proceedings.
Lim and 39 other Army and Marine officers are undergoing pre-trial investigation for allegedly plotting to march to the Edsa Shrine, join anti-government protests, and withdraw their support from President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on February 24.
The pre-trial investigation panel, headed by Colonel Al Perreras, handed to Lim the charge sheet that included five offenses under the Articles of War such as attempting to begin or create mutiny, disrespect to the President, willful disobedience of a superior officer, conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman, and conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline.
The panel also furnished Lim documentary evidence that the military has against him, including his own sworn statement and transcript of the video recording where the former scout ranger chief withdrew support from Arroyo whom he called a "bogus President."
The other pieces of evidence include the sworn statements of former Army chief now Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief Hermogenes Esperon, AFP Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence Rodrigo Maclang, Air Force Chief Jose Reyes, Navy Chief Mateo Mayuga, Marine Commandant Nelson Allaga, Marine Combat and Support Service Chief Jonathan Martir, and chief master sergeant Generoso Batoy.
The others are sworn statements of former Marine commandant Renato Miranda, Marine Colonels Ariel Querubin and Orlando de Leon, Lieutenant Colonels Achiles Segumalian and Nestor Flordeliza, and Major Jason Aquino.
Miranda, Querubin, de Leon, Segumalian, Flordeliza, and Aquino are among 40 officers ordered to face court martial for allegedly taking part in the failed plot. Two of the officers, all from the Marines, are unidentified.
Miranda and the other Marine officers undergoing pre-trial investigation are due to appear before the pre-trial panel on Wednesday morning. On the afternoon of the same day, the Army officers involved, except Lim, would also appear before the body.
Perreras asked Lim to submit his counter-affidavit on August 10 when the pre-trial investigation against him resumes. "With our without the counter affidavit, the case will be deemed submitted for resolution," he said.
He also informed the defense panel that the pre-trial investigation would be conducted in accordance with Presidential Decree (PD) 991, which prohibits the defense panel from cross-examining witnesses during pre-trial or preliminary investigation.
Lim's lawyer, Vicente Verdadero, objected, telling Perreras: "With due respect, we insist that the conduct of this pre-trial investigation be in accordance with Articles of War number 71, which says that "No charge will be referred to a general court martial for trial until after a thorough and impartial investigation thereof shall have been made."
"At such investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigating officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused," the provision says.
Verdadero said that under the Article of War 71, his client is "accorded full, impartial, punitive investigation and conduct cross examination on the witnesses. To our mind, we are given that opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses at this level which is unlike in civil courts."
But citing a Supreme Court (SC) ruling on Jose Commendador vs. Renato de Villa, Perreras said there was substantial requirement in law to proceed with the pre-trial investigation pursuant to PD 77 as amended by PD 991. "All manifestations of the respondent, through his counsel, is hereby noted and put on record," he said.
Outside the courtroom, Verdadero said he was prepared to defend his client. "We will prove that he didn't do such act. There was no mutiny, not even an attempt," he said of Lim, a product of the US Military Academy.
Asked about the video recording where Lim withdrew support from the President, Verdadero said: "He (Lim) didn't authorize the broadcast so why should he be liable for that. It should not have been aired (by ABS-CBN)."
The pre-trial investigation started at 9 a.m. Friday with Lim arriving around 30 minutes earlier clad in military office attire. Lim, along with the Army officers involved in the plot, is detained in an Army detention facility in Tanay, Rizal.
As soon as Perreras stepped into a military courtroom where the proceedings were conducted, he said to Lim "Sir" and paid a salute. Lim returned Perreras's salute and the two later gathered in a huddle with Verdadero before the formal proceedings.
Then a captain, Perreras was with the military prosecution panel that tried Lim and several other officers implicated in the failed February 24 plot before a court martial in connection with the failed coups against former President Corazon Aquino in 1989. The trial commenced in the early 1990s.
As the court martial against them was ongoing, the group of then Army lieutenant colonel and former senator Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan and Lim entered into peace negotiations and subsequently signed a peace agreement with the Ramos government. They were later given amnesty, paving the way for the reinstatement of Lim and many of the military rebels.
Meanwhile, Abraham Espejo, lawyer for Flordeliza and Army Lieutenant Colonel Nestor Malabanjot, complained that his clients are being held incommunicado in an Army detention cell in Tanay, Rizal, which he said is in violation of their rights as accused in the failed coup.
Espejo feared that his clients are also being harmed by their custodians. "We have no cell phone contact, no telephone contact. The families are unable to visit them also. For all we know, they might be under harsh conditions because we don't know what's happening to them," he said after Friday's pre-trial investigation of Lim in Camp Aguinaldo.
When asked why the custodians are denying him and their families access to Flordeliza and Malabanjot, Espejo said: "Well, according to them, there is a security problem." But he said it was not proper to deny him access to his clients.
"It might be true that there is security problem but how will we balance that with the right of the accused to a counsel. Does it mean that since there is security problem, we have to strip them of the right to counsel?" he asked.
He said the military should address the security concerns at the detention cell so his clients could talk to him. "That's not fair (denial of right to counsel). How can they defend themselves if they could not talk to their lawyers," he said.
Espejo also protested the rules set up by the custodians of his clients, particularly the limitation of their right to visitation. He said that under the rules, he can only talk to his clients between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. if he is given clearance by higher authorities.
He noted that Tanay is about three hours drive from Metro Manila and they have to attend to other clients. "So by the time we are able to talk to our clients, the (visitation) time had already lapsed," he said.
"How can we (lawyers) visit them? We are having a hard time (visiting them). These (visitation by lawyers) are basic rights of clients. In fact in regular courts, a lawyer can visit his client anytime. In this case, we need to file a request and have a clearance," he said.
But Army Spokesman Ernesto Torres debunked Espejo's claims. "They (military officers involved in the coup try) can be visited by their lawyers and their families but during certain period of time, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.," he said.
Told that Espejo was not allowed by the custodian access to Flordeliza and Malabanjot, Torres said: "Maybe the list of lawyers authorized to visit them are not yet finalized."
On the claim of Aquino's lawyer that his client is being held on solitary confinement, Torres said: "I cannot comment on that, I am not privy to that."
Espejo hoped that his clients, along with their co-accused, would be given fair pretrial investigation by a panel that will determine if evidence warrants their trial before a general court martial. (VR/Sunnex)
(July 29, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
|
|
[return to top]
[home]
|
|
