Update of the mutiny case against 28 officers in connection with the February 2006 alleged withdrawal of support from Gloria Arroyo following revelations of the military’s role in the tampering of election results as heard in the “Hello Garci” tapes:
The prosecution asked that the charge sheet, which focused on the Feb. 23, 2006 activities, be amended to include the Feb. 26 Fort Bonifacio standoff because their witnesses can only speak about the Feb. 26 standoff.
The court denied the motion to amend the charges.
More of this on Monday.
Photo caption:
1. Major Leomar Jose Doctolero with son Bingbong; Capt Joey Fontiveros, in front of him is Capt. James Sababan; Capt. Eric Sales with daughter Frances Danielle in his arms. In fron of him is wife Jopie; Brig. Gen. Danny Lim; Capt. Ruben Guinolbay; Lt. Jacon Cordero; Col. Ariel Querubin; Lt. Col. Nestor Flordeliza; Lt. Sandro Sereño; Martin, son of Col. Querubin; Capt. Ervin Divinagracia.
In front are Lt. Richiemel Caballes with wife Debbie and son Angelo; and Lt. Homer Estolas.
2.Capt. Allan Aurino, Lt. Col. Custodio Parcon, Capt. Mon Almodovar
3.Capt. Eric Sales, Gen. Lim, Col. Querubin, and Capt. Ruben Guinolbay
4. Col. Querubin, Capt. Dante Langkit, Gen. Lim
Amendment of charges in the middle of the trial? What travestry of justice is the prosecution up to. Thumbs up to the panel for denying the Prosecution’s motion.
Where have the judge advocates of old have gone?
sobrang talino talaga nitong mga kagawad ng prosekyusyon dahil sa kalagitnaan ng paglilitis na putol putol ay gusto nilang baguhin ang mga sakdal sa mga kinulong.
‘yun nga lang, PALPAK!
mga bopol!
only in the philippine military justice system this thinking exists. why can’t they accept the charges were but mere stopping these gentlemen from spreading the spirit of nationalism?
hay, naku!
Ano na namang kabalbalan ng prosecution ni Gloria yan para pahabain ang trial at bulukin ang mga 28 opisyal sa kulungan?!
Malamang ay meron katotohanan ang Mike Arroyo-Yano-Verzosa talk dahil rounded up na naman ang Magdalo. “Six supposed members of the rebel Magdalo group that launched botched coup attempts against President Arroyo and a New Zealander mercenary were arrested yesterday by the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission (PAOCC) but the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) was elusive on the possibility of a new destabilization attempt with the arrest.” http://www.tribune.net.ph
Nangangatog na sa takot ang putang Gloria!
Yehey! Mabuhay ang Magdalo!
Ang kaso ni asspweron, kaso-kasohan lang! These hearings are just motions of the kangaroo court. Baka yung testimony lang ni Martir at asspweron ang inaantay ng panel.
This delaying tactic and tactics are just that TACTICS!
What destabilization are they talking about?
For all you know those Magdalo officers are training for jobs abroad. I have written about foreign accompanies like Blackwater providing security for private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here’s the article, “Life in a private army in Iraq”: http://www.ellentordesillas.com/?p=343
Naghahanap lang sila ng butas para sila (pandak and company) mismo ang mag-destabilize. Ito ang plan E nila.
Wala nang pinaka hayop sa mundong ito kundi si Gloria Macapagal Arroyo at ang kanyang alipores…She must be Satan’s mistress!
The gall of these military prosecutors to move to amend and change the rules in the middle of process of hearing the case of the military detainees. Only those who are insecure and feel inadequate with the kind of charges they have filed against these military men can think of such move. In other words “mga bading sila” ( no offense sa mga bading). Hinde matatapos ang kaso ng mga magigiting na sundalo kung ganyan ang mga military prosecutors. Of course someone is orchestrating such a move. The military court should outright dismiss the case. The fact that these military prosecutors feel that their case in inadequate and wanting warrants an immediate dismissal. If the military court entertains such a move more injustice is committed. Baka nagpapasikat lang itong mga prosecutors para mabigyan ng award at promotion. Huwag sana at the expense of those soldiers and their families.
taragis na mga ‘yan!
baka gusto nilang idagdag na kaso nitong mga nakakulong ‘yung seajacking at hostaging na nangyayari sa somalia?
gloria, bukod kang hudas na babaeng nabuhay sa mundong ito kasama ng asal baboy mong asawang hindi malaman kung anong uri ng hayop ang ninuno!
this is not even a pending case because there is NO clear charges against these honourable genetlemen officer, yet the military hierarchy keeps them in detention ONLY TO SATISFY the whims and tantrums of the pickle minded woman who calls herself president of the philippines.
they should be kept under the custody of their immediate commanders but wonder, are there still any senior military officials not under the skirt of gloria’s?
haaay!
“…..honourable GENTLEMEN OFFICERS……”
the detained military officers can file charges of illegal detention since it has been years since they were charged with oblivious cases, but to whom and where?
nasaan na si attorney?
They can never put “GOOD AND HONORABLE GENTLEMEN” DOWN, so they have to think of other means to destroy them. Wa epeck naman. I wonder if the military prosecutors can sleep soundly at night. Remember, and konsensiya di nabibili.
amazona,
matagal na n ilang ipinagbili, hindi lang ‘yung kanilang kunsensiya kundi kaluluwa. may pahabol na libre pa nga, eh. ‘yung karangalan ng kanilang pami-pamilya.
magkano? mura lang naman sa kuwenta ni gloria. milyon milyong piso kasama na ang promosyon at siguradong posisyon sa gobyerno hindi pa man nagre-retire. ganyan na kakapal ang mukha at kawalang dangal ang mga bagong mandirigma sa ilalim ng pamumuno ng babaeng alibugha.
Puwede bang i-post ang charge sheet ng kasong ito?
If the events on the 23rd are essential to the crime charged, the fact that this motion to amend was filed indicates that the prosecution has no evidence. This should warrant a dismissal.
Maaari din bang i-post yung charge sheet laban doon sa officer na nag-distribute ng CDs ni Erap? This is an assault on the officer’s freedom of speech. Of course, they can argue military discipline requires this. But Bartnicki v Vopper can be used here.
Also, the officer was a mere passive distributor of somebody else’s speech (the producer). Circumscribing the distribution of the CD, whether by a civilian or an off duty military personnel is a circumscription of the speech of the producer. What cannot be done directly (curtail the freedom of speech of the producer) cannot be done indirectly.
okay, Atty.I’ll have them scanned. I’ll also pass on your suggestion about Bartnicki v Vopper to the lawyer of Lt. Raymundo, (the Marine who shared the Erap CDs with fellow soldiers) to his lawyer, Atty. Rommel Bagares.
Here’s the analogy. If I were passing leaflets, and there were people at the back, and there is an off-duty soldier between them and me, if I say “Boss pakipasa sa likod”, is that the soldier’s speech or mine?
So preventing the soldier from physically extending my reach, through his hand is a curtailment of my speech, not his.
Also, disrespect requires intent. If the soldier had not seen Erap’s film yet, even if the film were disrespectful of that woman, how can the soldier be one with the intent, without knowing said intent?
I would go for a writ of prohibition here, because the Congress (which passed the Articles of War) has no power to curtail speech. Neither may speech be curtailed by a too strict application of the articles of war, that actually impinges on the speech of the civilian producer. You might as well block civilian content from the TV programs fed to the barracks, or even households of the soldiers, because the “seditious” speech may reach them at home, and “affect military discipline”. This is plain censorship.
So if the passive conduit (soldier) of info may be found guilty for speech of others, then every cable TV operator is guilty of disrupting military discipline. Every soldier who turns on the radio to a station that is anti-Glue is guilty of disrespect. That is the absurd result of this.
Where do you draw the line? Where the Constitution drew it. “No law abridging speech shall be passed.” Similarly, no law already passed may be applied abridging speech.
Wow. Spontaneous yon ah. The keyboard is inspired. I wish I were drafting the pleading.
Good luck.