Lack of evidence doomed case vs ex-Palawan gov

in Palawan for erring on the case of - ing there was no evidence that the politician was behind the killing of broadcaster Gerry Ortega.

Justice Danton Bueser, in his seven-page concurring opinion on Arizala for “grave abuse of discretion,” as there was no probable cause

city jail on Friday following the no basis for the Palawan court to order his arrest or convict him for

Bueser joined Justice Normandie Pizarro and Justice Victoria Paredes in the ruling in favor

Bueser pointed out that it was the duty of the judge to make an independent determination of probable cause and not to rely merely on the findings of the prosecution.

He said the lower court could not rely solely on the extrajudicial con to issue a non-bailable arrest warrant.

vacated its duty to independently determine the existence of probable cause for purposes of issuing a warrant of arrest. Clearly, the amounting to lack of jurisdiction thereto in issuing the warrant of arrest against petitioner,” Bueser cited.

clear that the rights of a party could not be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another under the principle of “resinteraliosacta.”

“Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co- accused, and is considered hearsay against them,” it was pointed out.

Bueser was thus convinced that from the start, the Department of Justice (DoJ)and the lower court

“Concomitant to the foregoing, it is apparent that petitioner should not have been indicted to begin with. I agree with the (OSG) in their Memorandum as to the participation of the petitioner are lacking and cannot amount to probable cause to charge petitioner with the crime being imputed to him,” Bueser stated.

Bueser said the “DoJ Second Panel of Investigators in their banked on the alleged conspiracy he was implicated by Edrad. Absent the said implication, no other evidence shows that petitioner was involved in the said slaying.”

“Indeed, while conspiracy can be proven by circumstantial evidence, the series of evidence pre participation in the conspiracy must be consistent and should lead to no other conclusion but his participation in the crime as conspirator. After all, conspiracy itself must be proved as positively as the commission of the felony itself, for it is a ‘facile device by which an accused may be ensured Here the circumstantial evidence being raised are not only inconsistent but also illogical,” he added.