INSTEAD of submitting a counter-affidavit, suspended Bureau of Corrections chief Gerald Bantag yesterday asked the panel of state prosecutors handling the preliminary investigation on the killing of veteran radio commentator Percival “Percy Lapid” Mabasa and inmate Cristito Palana Villamor, alias Jun Villamor, to reconsider its decision not to inhibit from handling the probe on the cases.
Lawyer Rocky Thomas Balisong said Bantag is ready to submit his counter-affidavit on the cases but only before an “independent and impartial tribunal” which is the Office of the Ombudsman and not the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Lapid’s brother, Roy Mabasa rejected Bantag’s motion for reconsideration did not raise new arguments.
Balisong submitted Bantag’s motion for reconsideration yesterday during the resumption of the preliminary investigation at the Department of Justice.
The next hearing of the cases is set on January 31.
Bantag argued on the possible conflict of decision between the department and the Office of the Ombudsman where he filed murder raps against Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla in connection also with the same killings.
He said there is significant new evidence and development which are not prevailing at the time his motion for inhibition was junked by the prosecution panel headed by Deputy State Prosecutor Olivia Torrevillas.
“Assuming that the concurrent jurisdiction between the DOJ and the Ombudsman is applicable in this case, prudence dictates that the DOJ should inhibit and transfer the preliminary investigation of the cases to the Office of the Ombudsman since there is a question on the impartiality of the DOJ raised by the respondent, and none of the parties in this case questioned the impartiality of the Ombudsman,” Bantag’s motion said.
“If the investigating panel of prosecutors will not inhibit, it will create a situation where the DOJ panel of prosecutors will conduct a preliminary investigation and the Ombudsman will also conduct its own preliminary investigation in the cases filed before them, which arose from the same incident, the same victims and the same sets of characters,” he added.
Bantag said this may result in an absurd situation.
“What happens if the DOJ finds probable cause against DG Bantag and the Ombudsman will find probable cause against SOJ Remulla out of the same incident and the same victims?
What happens if the DOJ will issue a resolution charging respondent-movant as the mastermind and the Ombudsman will issue a resolution charging Secretary Remulla as the mastermind? So, two different masterminds are being charged? It will surely create a crisis between the two agencies,” the motion said.
To avoid such possibility, Bantag said it is best that the cases be consolidated with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Bantag said even if he is to believe that the members of the DOJ panel are objective and may not be biased against him, still their resolution will be subject to Remulla’s approval as DOJ chief.
Moreover, Bantag said even if the panel will junk the cases against him, he does not expect Remulla to uphold such a move.
“For sure, the SOJ will reverse the dismissal and substitute it to a finding on the existence of probable cause,” he said.
In junking Bantag’s plea, the DOJ said his allegation of bias and partiality against the panel has no merit and is based on the wrong premise since the Remulla does not participate in the conduct of preliminary investigation nor approves resolutions of the panel.
It said all resolutions in preliminary investigation cases are approved only by the prosecutor general, provincial prosecutor or city prosecutor.
