Was the GenSan bombing suspect allowed to escape?

The explanation of Secretary Joey Lina and PNP Chief Hermogenes Ebdane, Jr. on the escape of Abdul Basit Usman last October 26, 2002 while in the custody of the Sarangani police is downright preposterous. Their excuse in this most disgusting display of police ineptness and criminal negligence in the performance of their duty is an affront to the intelligence of the Filipino people.If Usman is neither "a suspect nor a fugitive" in that Cotabato, GenSan bombing incident at the time of his escape, why was he in the first place hunted down, nabbed, handcuffed and detained in the police provincial headquarters?

Usman was obviously and undeniably "taken into custody" in connection with that most despicable and wicked act of bombing the Fitmart shopping mall where fifteen innocent civilians were killed and sixty others wounded or maimed. This wretched crime was perpetrated more than six months ago and has since then been the subject of intensive investigation by the law enforcement authorities.After careful and thorough sleuthing, the break came when witnesses surfaced pointing to Usman as the one who planted the bomb at the mall.The police must have verified the accuracy and truthfulness of the statements of these witnesses because they are presumed to have regularly performed their duties. Furthermore such verification is a vital part in determining "probable cause" prior to apprehending a person when an offense has just been committed. Clearly therefore, when Usman was "taken into custody" by the police,he was in effect arrested without a warrant of arrest.The police must have known or should have been aware as peace officers that they can make such arrest pursuant to Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court which says that " a peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person when an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it."

Having been lawfully arrested without warrant, the police could detain the person arrested if a criminal information is filed against him in court within the period prescribed by law.The police should thus timely refer the matter to a prosecutor who will summarily conduct an inquest by personally examining the witnesses and their affidavits and other documents, if any.The prosecutor will then file the complaint or information in Court after being personally satisfied that the witnesses voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or the arresting officer (Section 7,Rule 112,Rules of Court).

In the case of Usman, it is clear that the criminal information for multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder have already been filed in Court way back on August 16,2002 pursuant to foregoing Rule 112 Sec.7 of the Rules of Court. And pursuant to the same Rule 112 (Section 6(c), a warrant for his arrest is not necessary anymore precisely because he is already under detention after having been lawfully arrested without warrant. His continued detention is therefore legal and valid for the Court to proceed in the exercise of its jurisdiction over him and his cases. Even on technical grounds therefore, Lina and Ebdane are utterly mistaken in claiming that Usman cannot be detained because "he is not the subject of an arrest warrant" and that they "would be violating his human rights if we jail him".They are also wrong in saying that Usman is not a "suspect or a fugitive".He is more than a mere suspect because he is already an "accused"when the criminal informations against him were filed in Court.And he is already a fugitive because he fled from the jurisdiction of the court to avoid prosecution.A person who is "neither a suspect nor a fugitive" has no reason to flee and to hide. Besides,why is he now being hunted if he is not a suspect or a fugitive?

Indeed Lina and Ebdane can not "escape" the plain and simple truth that Usman has escaped. As they fumble with their explanations and toss the blame on the judge, they cannot avoid using the term "escape" to describe how Usman was able to slip out of his police captors.They could not candidly say he was "released" which is more apt in describing the act of allowing a person to depart because his continued detention would "violate his human rights" Technically, "escape" means the departure or deliverance out of custody of a person who is lawfully confined, before he is entitled to his liberty by process of law( Black’s Law Dictionary 640).So when Ebdane and Lina said that Usman had "escaped" they are caught in their own word in admitting that Usman was legally confined when he disappeared.The legal meaning of "escape" is clearly incompatible with their contention that Usman was neither a suspect nor a fugitive and was being unlawfully detained at the time of his escape.

The alleged ambiguity of Usman’s name in the warrant of arrest is not even an issue because a warrant for his arrest is no longer necessary since he is already lawfully detained.Besides, the name in the warrant of arrest is not that important. Even a "John Doe" can be the subject of an arrest warrant as long as he can be pinpointed and identified. The use of "John Doe" or a fictitious name is allowed if the name of the accused cannot be ascertained.In this case of Usman, his name is already ascertained and he has been pinpointed by witnesses and captured. What is uncertain is whether it is an alias or not.This uncertainty will not affect his lawful detention specially because a warrant of arrest is not even necessary.

Technicality can not conceal, erase or justify these bare facts and irrefutable principles of law in the Usman caper. Lina and Ebdane are absolutely way off tangent in using technicality to cover up the appalling and shameful sloppiness of their people while in custody of a person suspected of committing crimes related to terrorism.They are giving the wrong signal that they are more concerned with the "human rights" of a suspected terrorist than national security and, more importantly, the safety of witnesses tagging the suspects.This wrong signal is more pronounced in the light of the well known practice by the police in other petty crimes where the suspects are slapped with more serious charges through planted evidence merely to justify their prolonged detention.

Just as the nation’s ire was aroused by the wretchedness of the bombing, the people’s indignation and interest on the escape of the suspect must be sustained until heads roll.Otherwise we will have more of these "escapes".

E-mail us at [email protected]