Prosecution calls Ecleo motion “useless”

CEBU, Philippines -  Prosecution lawyer Kit Enriquez said the omnibus motion filed by former Dinagat Island Rep. Ruben Ecleo Jr. seeking for the inhibition of Judge Soliver Peras is useless and merely a delaying tactic.

In an interview yesterday, Enriquez reiterated that before Ecleo can avail of the legal remedy after he was convicted for Parricide for killing his wife, Alona, in 2002, he must first submit himself before the court.

Ecleo jumped bail. He failed to appear in court after his cross examination until the promulgation of the case last April 13, 2012. Ecleo was allowed by the court to post bail due to his heart ailment.

Enriquez said Ecleo must appear in court and affirm his manifestation that he indeed hired lawyer Noel Archival as collaborating counsel.

“We stand that the omnibus motion filed by Ecleo through Archival was a mere scrap of paper. We questioned the signature of Ecleo which appeared in the manifestation filed before Judge Peras,” he cited.

“If Ecleo and his counsel believed that the former is innocent, Ecleo must appear in court because as far as we are concerned, he is a fugitive,” Enriquez said.

The prosecution lawyer added that Ecleo must explain before the court as to the reason of his absence during the promulgation.

Ecleo through Archival, earlier filed an omnibus motion seeking the inhibition of Peras citing loss of trust and confidence that the judge will gave a fair ruling.

He added that Peras failed to appreciate their evidences and relied on the prosecution witnesses.

“With all due respect, the accused in this case is of the conclusion that Peras is favoring the prosecution despite the presentation of glaring evidence proving his innocence,” Ecleo’s motion reads.

“Hence, the accused has lost his trust and confidence that the presiding judge could act with impartiality and fairness in rendering a just and equitable decision based on the records of this case,” the omnibus motion further stated.

Archival cited his client was not given due process after the court failed to furnish Ecleo a notice of promulgation.

In its comment, the prosecution belied the notion that Ecleo was not given due process.

“Notice to counsel is notice to client,” they said citing a notice of promulgation was sent to Ecleo’s counsel Orlando Salatandre. They cited that in fact, Salatandre appeared during the promulgation.

The prosecution said the arguments mentioned by the defense in their omnibus motion were mere repetitions of the motion for reconsideration they filed.

“The difference between the omnibus motion and the motion for reconsideration was the title…they added the inhibition,” Enriquez said.

Furthermore, Enriquez questioned the entry of appearance of Archival. He mentioned Archival did not make a clear notice of entry of appearance.

“There is nothing in that motion that says I am appearing for and in behalf of Mr. Ecleo. With that, we consider the notice as a mere scrap of paper,” he said.

Enriquez said Peras was fair in giving ruling. He however, said if the defense wanted Peras not to handle the case then they just have to wait for the resolution and appeal before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

The omnibus motion will be heard on November 27, 2012.  (FREEMAN)