CEBU, Philippines - It was a victory for which camp?
This as both camps claimed victory when Regional Trial Court Judge Meinrado Paredes denied the motions filed by both the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) and the lawyers of Bella Ruby Santos.
CIDG lawyer Inocencio de la Cerna claimed victory when Paredes denied motion to quash search warrant filed by respondent Bella Ruby Santos.
De la Cerna said the denial of Paredes can bolster the complaint they filed before the Prosecutor’s Office against Santos and her boyfriend British national Ian Charles Griffiths for kidnapping with homicide.
Likewise, respondents’ counsel Rameses Villagonzalo also claimed victory when the motion to take custody of the seized items filed by CIDG was denied by the court.
The two camps said they were contented with the decision.
Order
In the order issued by Paredes yesterday denied the motion to quash the search warrant due to lack of factual and legal basis, which was the same reason why he also denied the motion to take custody of the seized items.
Paredes said both parties failed to defend their claim.
Paredes also ordered, to return the seized items to Santos, which are her Mitsubishi Pajero, hair strands, Local Area Network cord, Nintendo DS game cartridge, rug, sex toys, empty CD covers and assorted CDs, waiver and assorted IDs and passport, and two stones.
“There was no authority for the CIDG to seize a pajero with plate number LMJ-382. It is very clear that the CIDG seized the wrong vehicle,” Paredes said.
Paredes said during the application of the search warrant, the applicant stated LHJ-382 and not LMJ-382.
He added in fact, applicants did not say the plate number was tampered.
Paredes said the items that he ordered returned were not mentioned in the search warrant issued.
Paredes explained “in fact during the hearing of the motion to quash and motion to take custody, the counsel for CIDG informed the court that the CIDG is not sure whether all of the items mentioned in the search warrant were used in kidnapping with homicide.”
The CIDG said only the Scene of the Crime Operatives (SOCO) can explain why the items seized are connected to committing the crime of kidnapping with homicide.
However, Paredes said “it must be remembered that it was the main task of the CIDG and its witness, who allegedly have personal knowledge of the things seized, to recover object or any kind of evidence used or intended to be used in committing a crime of kidnapping with homicide.”
Meanwhile some of the items seized will be retained in court as subject for examination.
Paredes ordered, the bed sheet with suspected bloodstains, USB and card reader, video camera with accessories and tapes, blanket (Batman) from the stockroom with suspected bloodstains and bed sheet and table CD card, portion of bed/mattress with suspected bloodstains and bed sheet with suspected bloodstains be kept by the court.
Paredes said the CIDG may conduct an examination and testing of the items kept by the court only in the presence of the respondent or her duly authorized representatives.
According to Villagonzalo the items which have been returned cannot anymore be used as evidence in the case.
However, de la Cerna said the items which were returned cannot weaken their complaint since they have six eye witnesses who saw the kidnapping.
Motion to quash search warrant
Paredes said in the motion to quash filed by Santos there was only one issue, the existence or non-existence of probable cause at the time of its issuance.
Paredes quoted jurisprudence stating “the matters that may be raised in a motion to quash search warrant will not go beyond the immediate, limited issue of the existence or non-existence of probable cause at the time of the issuance of a search warrant. The matters of defenses should properly be raised at the criminal action not at the hearing of the motion to quash search warrant.”
Paredes said the issuance of a search warrant had probable cause.
He said in fact, during the application for search warrant by the CIDG, they had the personal knowledge of the incident when they conducted surveillance and the witness they presented has a personal knowledge claiming she saw the dumping of the body in the cliff of barangay Sayaw, Barili town.
No official word yet
Acting Cebu Provincial Police Office director Patrocinio Comendador said he has not yet received official word on the reported arrest of Griffiths arrest in the United Kingdom.
The Task Force Ellah Joy is now coordinating with the Department of Foreign Affairs to verify the report.
“We are still in the verification process and we are waiting for the feedback,” he told The Freeman.
Comendador directed lawyer Julius Ompad, the CPPO legal counsel, to research about the laws in United Kingdom, where Griffiths was reportedly arrested.
Ompad said his research will primarily focus on the common law crimes in UK especially court decisions, jurisprudence, judicial proceedings and double criminality among others. — with Ria Mae Y. Booc/NLQ (FREEMAN)