Ombudsman may assume jurisdiction
Rightly or wrongly, the lawyers of suspended Bureau of Corrections Director General Gerald Bantag as well as the latter himself, believe that the Department of Justice, is biased against their client, for issuing statements expressing its position that the “totality” of evidence in its assessment, strongly points to Bantag as the brains of the heinous crimes.
Given DoJ’s premature and inappropriate public narratives, there is a growing public perception, if one is to seep through the sentiments of the netizens in social media, that the DoJ, may have overstepped its duty and impairs its objectivity, in navigating the Percy Lapid murder case relative to the alleged involvement of Bantag, in targeting the latter as the mastermind or as one of the masterminds of the double murder case, as it ridiculously refers to. Unsurprisingly, they are crying foul. It does not help that after Bantag, in a public interview, unleashed a barrage of startling and disconcerting tirades and issues against the Justice Secretary, the latter opted not to engage the embattled government official in a reasoned discourse but instead responded on a cavalier if not a condescending retort of: “Hindi ko siya papatulan. Talk is cheap.” To reiterate, the justice chief cannot just ignore respondent Bantag’s rather serious allegations. He must reply to them lest his silence gives validity to the truth of Bantag’s assertions. Talk is cheaper if he does not respond to the issues raised against him.
There is such a thing as implied admission. When one is confronted with a declaration that calls for a response to refute the same, if not true, and doesn’t do so, his silence can be construed as acquiescence to such remark. Even in law, such silence can be used as evidence against such a person.
We call the attention of the person to whom this principle of law, covered by a provision in the Revised Rules of Court, may be worth considering to persuade him to break his silence, to wit:
“SECTION 32. Admission by silence. An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.” (Rule 130, Revised Rules of Evidence)
Bantag claims he is being framed for the twin murder and there is an insinuation, which requires validation, that the DoJ head has something to do with it or supporting it. The theory that Bantag has ordered the gang leaders in prison who want him dead to do the hit and raise the P550,000 as consideration is a stretch and cerebrally insulting. How could a Bantag spread his plan to kill someone to the inmates of the New Bilibid Prison? So is the unlikely probability of him contracting the murder of the radio commentator after telling everybody, the first of whom was his boss in the DOJ, of his outrage to the offending broadcast journalist, which would certainly make him the prime suspect, if the subject of his ire turned up dead, a strain in one’s intelligence.
Bantag’s allegations have placed the DoJ’s impartiality under suspicion. Given that there is reasonable doubt on the fairness and objectivity of the government agency tasked to conduct the preliminary investigation of the case against Bantag to determine the existence of probable cause, a finding of such being a condition for its filing in court, which state of distrust is due to its own making, and to erase any lingering doubt as to its objectivity and the application of the rule of law in resolving the case based on the facts and the law, there should be another government office that should handle the preliminary investigation. The Office of the Ombudsman could assume the jurisdiction. This way the DoJ and its head will be spared from the suspicion that they have prejudged the case.
Under the Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman, among others, shall have the power “to investigate and prosecute on its own or on a complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and in the exercise of his primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigation agency of Government, the investigation of such cases.” (Sec. 13(1), Article XI, Constitution)
Relative to the foregoing provision, the Sandiganbayan shall have original exclusive jurisdiction over, among others,
“Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed about their office by public officials.” (Section 4(b), Republic Act 10660)
The allegations as culled from the matrix drawn by the investigators indicate that Bantag, as Bureau of Corrections Director General, allegedly used his office, his position, and his influence in executing his plan to murder the radioman (Percy Lapid) and the alleged middleman (Villamor). He allegedly ordered his subordinate (Zulueta) to execute the murder by using three prison gang commanders and other inmates. To cover up his tracks he allegedly ordered Zulueta again to kill Villamor.
From the aforecited provisions and the alleged circumstances surrounding the two murders, the Office of the Ombudsman can assume jurisdiction over the preliminary investigation of Bantag.
Such assumption of jurisdiction by the Ombudsman will obviate a potential miscarriage of justice and pave the way for an unquestioned preliminary investigation, and shield it from disruptive controversy.
“When one is confronted with a declaration that calls for a response to refute the same, if not true, and doesn’t do so, his silence can be construed as acquiescence to such a remark.
“This way the DoJ and its head will be spared from the suspicion that they have prejudged the case.