THE Court of Appeals (CA) has junked the motion for reconsideration filed by former Manila village chair Guia Gomez Castro and affirmed its ruling upholding the issuance of a warrant of arrest against her over the killing of a police officer in 2011.
In a three-page ruling promulgated on July 2, the appellate court’s Third Division through Associate Justice Jaime Fortunato Caringal held that upon a thorough re-examination of the records of the case, it found “absolutely no grave abuse of discretion” on the part of the lower court in denying Castro’s motion to quash the warrant.
It also said that the issues raised by Castro are better raised through a trial.
“The arguments presented in the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration delved into matters of evidence that should be properly addressed during the trial proper. The crucial consideration for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is whether the lower courts were satisfied based on the evidence presented thus far, that the accused must be taken into custody to prevent the frustration of justice,” the CA explained.
To recall, the CA’s Third Division junked Castro’s motion to quash the arrest warrant issued by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court in relation to the 2011 killing of police officer Roderick Valencia.
Castro specifically challenged two orders – the first, from Quezon City RTC Branch 88, which dismissed her motion to quash; and the second from Branch 224, which denied her motion for reconsideration.
The killing of Valencia remained unresolved until Ernesto Encarnado, who allegedly drove the motorcycle used in the killing that occurred in Brgy. Salvacion, Quezon City, testified that Castro ordered a certain “Alex” to kill the police officer.
Castro was charged with murder by government prosecutors on September 2020.
Castro, who was accused of being Manila’s “drug queen” over her alleged role in the resale of seized illegal drugs, questioned the extrajudicial confession of Encarnado linking her to Valencia’s murder and the absence of a death certificate or autopsy report.
However, the CA said the lower courts were correct in issuing the warrant and in denying her motion to quash.
“We disagree with the petitioner’s assertions. First, there is no deadline for a witness to make an extrajudicial confession regarding their own crime and implicate their co-conspirators. Second, there is no infirmity in the method by which Encarnado identified the petitioner. It is notable that he identified three of her pictures… a doubtful identification would have arisen if he had identified fewer and not all three pictures,” the CA said.
With this, the appellate court stressed that the essential point remains that, based on the available information, “there is probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest against petitioner.”
Concurring with the ruling are Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas Jr. and Ruben Reynaldo Roxas.
