JUNINO “Niño” Padilla, who co-manages radio dyRC of the Manila Broadcasting Company, is facing four counts of cyberlibel in violation of Republic Act 10175, or The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 in relation to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. The case was filed by former Cebu City councilor and lawyer Gerry Carillo after the broadcaster posted on his Facebook account the unsettled financial obligation of the lawyer that the latter incurred in his blocktime program during last year’s election.
Carillo ran for the south congressional district against incumbent Rep. Rodrigo “Bebot” Abellanosa and lost. He had a blocktime contract with dyRC during the campaign period. Despite several demands, Carillo reportedly ignored Padilla’s appeal to settle his obligation. Padilla posted on his FB account several times about a certain councilor and lawyer who failed to settle his obligation with the station. Padilla called the lawyer “Attorney Dukol.” Although not named, Carillo felt alluded to. Some netizens identified him through their comments but not Padilla.
Prosecutor Alex Gapud resolved the case and recommended the indictment of Padilla. Prosecutor Rodulph Joseph Val Carillo recommended approval and City Prosecutor Liceria Lofranco Rabillas approved it for filing.
Sources said that Prosecutor Carillo is a close relative of the former councilor, while Rabillas was Carillo’s executive assistant during his City Hall days. Although Prosecutors Carillo and Rabillas were not the ones who resolved the case, it would have been prudent for them to inhibit. Why? Because of their affinity and past association with the former councilor. The resolution of the investigating fiscal is still subject for review by his or her head of office. In this case, the resolution of Gapud can either be affirmed or reversed by the reviewing fiscal and the city prosecutor.
But having a blood relation and being a former officemate, Prosecutors Carillo and Rabillas could have some “biases.” I was told that the prosecution doesn’t have a manual or policy regarding voluntarily inhibition. They adopt the provision of the Revised Rules of Court.
Section 1, Rule 137 (Disqualification of Judges) of the Revised Rules of Court states: “No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the six degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has been presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
“A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.”
I don’t know if this has been “overlooked” by Padilla’s lawyer or this development just surfaced. Had he known this before he should have filed a motion for inhibition. But if Prosecutors Carillo and Rabillas have some delicadeza, they should have voluntarily inhibited themselves from the very start.
I don’t know if in his motion for reconsideration, Padilla can still raise this matter of removing Prosecutors Carillo and Rabillas from the case. Or bring up this matter to the justice secretary in a form of a petition for review. Ayaw’g kabalaka Boss Niño, layo-layo pa nig latason. Naa bitaw akong libel, dugay-dugay na man na. Pero andam lang og pangpiyansa daan.