THIS might be self-serving but I am writing this as a matter of personal privilege.
Through my lawyer, Joan Baron of the JP Garcia law office, I filed a motion seeking the inhibition of the Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office from the libel cases filed against me by the son of the “former political has-been.” My reason: All prosecutors in the city get P10,000 monthly allowances each from the City Government. With that amount, their resolution on my case might be tainted with biases in favor of their “patron.”
The complainant is the son of the mayor and his mother is also a city councilor.
As Filipinos, we feel we owe a debt of gratitude to those who help us, especially on financial matters. That allowance is already a big help for our prosecutors. Yes, the money is voluntarily given by City Hall but that amount could somehow influence the prosecutors’ sound judgment.
In next year’s annual budget of the City government, the executive department appropriated P5 million for the allowances of prosecutors and judges assigned in Cebu City courts.
I think my move will also spare the office from public perception of being biased and prejudiced or for “conflict of interest.” City Prosecutor Leceria Rabillas was with City Hall before she transferred to the Department of Justice.
Last October, the son of the “former political has-been” filed two libel cases against me, one for violation of the Cyber Crime Prevention Act of 2012 or Republic Act 10175 considering that my article was published online and, two, for violation of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code. The cases stemmed from my column in SunStar where I alleged his involvement in the butane canister refiling business. He claimed he was maligned in that article.
There was a time when the mayor withheld the allowance of former assistant city prosecutor Mary Ann Castro when she got into several controversies. Castro is now assigned in Masbate.
While there are no grounds for inhibition specifically against a prosecutor, those of judges may also be applicable to prosecutors. Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states:
“Section 1. Disqualification of judges.--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 sixth 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.”
This is not to mention “delicadeza” because, again, city prosecutors owe a debt of gratitude to their “patron” at City Hall. I rest my case.