|
THE
Court of Appeals (CA) has accused retired Maj. Gen.
Jovito Palparan and his men of lying about the abduction
and disappearance of two activists from the University
of the
Philippines
and a farmer on June 26, 2006 in Hagonoy, Bulacan.
In a
22-page decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral
Mendoza, the CA Special Former Eleventh Division junked
however, the petition for habeas corpus filed by the
families of missing UP students Sherlyn Cadapan and
Karen Empeño and farmer Manuel Merino, saying that the
proper remedy in the case is for the petitioners to
initiate criminal proceedings against those they
believed were responsible for the disappearance of the
three.
The CA
also noted that there is no “indubitable evidence” to
prove that the three are in the custody of Palparan and
other respondents to warrant the granting of the habeas
corpus petition.
Nevertheless, the appellate court ordered the Commission
on Human Rights (CHR), the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) and the National Police to conduct
separate investigations into the case owing to the
“obvious inconsistencies” in the testimonies of the
respondents.
“The
respondents were not telling the whole truth as they
appeared to be evasive in their declarations. They were
persistent in their denials but their assertions
contradict each other. There is, therefore, a need to
further investigate, and delve into, the disappearance
of the missing persons. This can adequately be
undertaken separately by the National Police, the NBI
and the CHR,” the CA said.
The CA
further noted that it cannot yet order the prosecution
of Palparan and his men owing to insufficient basis.
However,
the appellate court held that there is strong evidence
that Merino was abducted by military men based on the
testimony of witness Alberto Ramirez.
Ramirez
testified that on June 28, 2006, or two days after
Merino was reported missing, the latter acted as a guide
of several armed men who went to his house and forcibly
took him to the barangay Mercado Detachment onboard a
jeep with license plate number RTF-597, the same jeep
that was allegedly used in the abduction of Merino and
the two UP students.
“The
evidence of the petitioners tends to show that the
perpetrators were men within the jurisdictional command
of respondents Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac and Maj. Gen.
Palparan. Indeed, the respondents denied knowledge of
the abduction and the attendant circumstances but the
court is far from satisfied,” the ruling stated.
Palparan
was the former commanding general of the Army’s 7th
Infantry Division based at Fort Magsaysay, Laur, Nueva
Ecija while Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac, was the commanding
officer of Task Force Bulacan.
Other
respondents are Lt. Gen. Romeo Tolentino, commander of
Northen Luzon Command; Lt. Francis Mirabelle Samson,
commander of the barangay Mercado Detachment in Hagonoy;
and a certain Arnel Enrique, who has reportedly refused
to heed the summons of the court.
In
evaluating the testimonies of the respondents, the CA
noted that Boac and Samson, who served as adverse
witnesses for the prosecution, denied knowledge of any
abduction which took place on June 2006.
In her
affidavit, Samson claimed that she assumed the position
of section leader on June 7, 2006 and was relieved of
her command on June 21, 2006, or five days before the
abduction happened.
But when
she testified in court Samson admitted that she was
assigned to the barangay Mercado Detachment on May 31,
2006 as executive officer and finished her tour of duty
on July 14, 2006.
“Thus,
as pointed out by the petitioners, she was still in
Hagonoy when the abduction in San Miguel, Hagonoy,
Bulacan, took place,” the CA stressed.
Samson
also testified that she did not conduct an investigation
but Boac informed the appellate court that he ordered
all his commanders to give him an account of the
abduction.
On the
other hand, Boac initially claimed that he did not
receive any order or command from Palparan or any higher
authority to investigate the disappearance of the three.
He added
that he only made inquiries to the police about the
incident and found out that there was no report, since
it was not recorded in the police blotter.
The
petitioners, however, were able to show that the
incident was recorded in the police blotter.
The CA
also noted that Palparan claimed that he ordered Boac to
investigate reports on the abductions of the missing
persons but the latter’s statement denied that he was
ordered to conduct an investigation.
Palparan
also said that he received reports on the abduction but
Boac denied having made such a report.
“There
are still loose links and the court cannot fill or
bridge the gaps by speculations and conjectures. Charges
can only be filed if there are concrete bases sufficient
enough to constitute a probable cause against the
respondents. This can only be established and
strengthened by a thorough investigation,” the CA said.
Concurring in the ruling were Associate Justices Monina
Arevalo Zeñarosa and Sesinando Villon. |
