This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. VI, No. 6, March 12-18, 2006
Rebellion Charge Baseless, Beltran’s
Lawyers Say The
rebellion charge against detained Anakpawis (Toiling Masses) Rep. Crispin
Beltran is “baseless,” says Romeo Capulong, one of Beltran’s lawyers. Capulong
added that the continued detention of Beltran is “too high a price to pay” for
an innocent man and a “dent in our judicial proceedings”. BY
EMILY VITAL
The rebellion
charge against detained Anakpawis (Toiling Masses) Rep. Crispin Beltran is
“baseless,” says his lawyers.
Romeo Capulong,
one of Beltran’s lawyers, said in a March 7 hearing at Branch 38 of the Makati
Regional Trial Court that there was “no probable cause” for charging the solon
with rebellion, a non-bailable offense.
The hearing was
precipitated by the filing of a motion for judicial determination of probable
cause filed by Beltran’s lawyers, Romeo Capulong, Rachel Pastores, and Amelyn
Sato.
“Even the most
brief illegal incarceration is too high a price to pay considering the case at
hand,” Capulong said. “It is a dent in our judicial proceedings. You are doing
it to an innocent man, a member of Congress at that.”
Out of the 47
documents that were submitted –11 affidavits of witnesses and 36 enclosures –
only three affidavits may be considered as relevant evidence, Capulong said.
Capulong went on to disprove the claims of three prosecution witnesses.
In an affidavit, a
certain Raul Catsuella – who identified himself as a rebel returnee now with the
Philippine Army’s 2nd Infantry Division based at Camp Capinpin, Tanay,
Rizal (53 kms. north of Manila) – said he saw Beltran and five other party-list
representatives attending the 10th plenum of the underground
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) allegedly held in August 1992. In the
same affidavit, Catsuella said Beltran was with the New People’s Army (NPA), the
CPP’s armed component, from August 1992 to February 1993.
The five other
party-list representatives being referred to in the affidavit, namely Reps.
Satur Ocampo, Teddy Casiño and Joel Virador of Bayan Muna (People First), Rafael
Mariano of Anakpawis, and Liza Maza of the Gabriela Women’s Party (GWP) were
also charged with rebellion. Threatened with arrest, the five are now under the
protective custody of the House of Representatives.
“Incredible”
Catsuella’s
allegation is “inherently incredible,” Capulong said.
He showed the
court Beltran’s passport, which revealed that in the period he was supposedly
with the NPA, Beltran had gone to France and Osaka, Japan. “[We have a] complete
record of all his activities, including his trips abroad,” Capulong said.
”Assuming it is
true,” Capulong added, “How can you use that alleged attendance (of the meeting)
as a basis for rebellion? Fourteen years ago! This is a mere concoction.”
Another affidavit
by Maj. Rino Corpuz alleged that in the Feb. 24 rally, Beltran made the
following call: “Ibagsak ang rehimen! Palayasin si Arroyo! Palitan ang
gobyernong Arroyo ng gobyernong anakpawis!” (Down with this regime! Oust
Arroyo! Replace the Arroyo government with the government of the toiling
masses!)
Capulong said
Beltran was not in the program and did not give any interview. Moreover,
Capulong insisted that the same alleged utterances were used in another case
against Beltran – inciting to sedition.
Another witness,
Roel Escala, said in an affidavit that he saw Beltran and the five other
party-list representatives alighting from a van at Bukal village, Padre Garcia,
Batangas last February 20.
It was in Batangas
that 1Lt. Lawrence San Juan, a Magdalo leader who escaped from prison in
January, was recaptured.
“(This is a)
patent lie,” Capulong said. “Beltran was in Congress on Feb. 20. He attended two
committee meetings and a session.”
Capulong said
there was also no mention of Beltran’s name in the documents reported to have
been confiscated from San Juan on Feb. 25.
Unprepared?
Meanwhile,
Emmanuel Velasco, senior state prosecutor, asked the presiding judge for 15 days
to file their comment. Velasco claimed they never received the motion filed by
Beltran’s lawyers. “(We have) never read (it) up to this moment.”
Velasco said they
have yet to file more pieces of evidence.
“We regret they
did not come prepared,” Capulong said.
Sixto Marella Jr.,
presiding judge, has given public prosecutors seven days to file their comment.
Illegal arrest
Capulong said
there had been three attempts to justify the arrest without warrant of Beltran.
He cited the 21-year old warrant in a 1985 rebellion charge against Beltran. The
second one was the inciting to sedition case. The latest attempt was the
rebellion charge.
Capulong said that
when he reminded the prosecutors that the 1985 case was already dismissed, they
filed the inciting to sedition case. When they told the prosecutors that
Beltran has parliamentary immunity for the inciting to sedition case as it
carries a penalty of less than six years imprisonment, the prosecutors filed the
rebellion case.
“The public
prosecutors must make up their minds,” he said. Bulatlat © 2006 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
Beltran’s Incarceration, a Dent in
the Country’s Judicial Proceedings
Bulatlat