Mayor To Report Waves of Harassment By Cops

By Mortz C. Ortigoza

Sual, Pangasinan Mayor Roberto “Bing” Arcinue was hell bent to goad Bolaoen Punong Barangay(village chief) Valentin dela Cruz Doquenia II  to file criminal and administrative cases to those members of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) based at the provincial office of the CIDG in Lingayen, Pangasinan after they “harassed” PB Doquenia and his family.

According to the written narration given by the village chief to the mayor, at 5 am of September 19, 2018 personnel of the CIDG knocked at the door of his house and declared to search it under a warrant issued by the judge of the Regional Trial Court.

SEARCH - State security in the Philippines do a search and seizure of a person's property when he purportedly violated a law as stated in a search warrant issued by a judge. Photo Credit: NDBC NEWS

The alleged offense of Doquenia was he hid an illegal .45 caliber pistol and numbers of its bullets.

When one of the operatives showed the warrant it had a different name of Valentin Clemente Doquenia instead of the name of the PB.

“Tinangkang ipatupad ng isang CIDG Officer ang permiso para maghalughog sa naturang lugay subalit pinigilan sila ni Ginoong Doquenia habang tinatawag si Kagawad Nancy Lardizabal Clemente,” a written narration in Tagalog titled “Di Umano’y “CIDG” Lingayen” na Wow Mali!”  furnished by the mayor to reporters.

One of them threatened the village chief when he prevented them to search his house: “Kung may makita akong baril sa bahay mo, papagapangin kita!”

When Kagawad Clemente arrived she told that the subject person was not the kapitan.

Sensing that they could be technical by the magistrate or they would be subject to a string of criminal cases that could not only land them in a slammer but sued them with administrative cases where they could lose their jobs, they called their chief, probably a police major, in the capital town Lingayen for advice.
The criminal cases against the sleuths could include Violation of Domicile, Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained and Abuse in the Service of Those Legally Obtained, and Others while the administrative cases would be Misconduct, Abuse of Authority, Oppression, and others.

Arcinue told us media men that the chief ordered his men to backtrack and return to the “barracks” at their camp nestled just besides the office of the police provincial director.

The mayor told us that Kapitan Doquenia had been anxious that the operatives will come back some other day and search his house with a prepared warrant just like what happened to the three punong barangays in the coastal town whose abodes were searched and one of them complained that after the cops did not find those firearms that were written on the warrant, one of the policemen allegedly “surreptitiously put" a grenade above the aparador or cabinet.

“The fear of the kapitans are the police or the CIDG would even plant or put a sachet of shabu (methamphetamine) or items to incriminate the subjects,” Arcinue cited.

It made me think that although those mala prohibitas (unlawful acts) allegedly "planted" and found there could not be used as evidence, still they undermine the credibility those law abiding village chief executives before the eyes of the gullible.

Arcinue said he will report these harassments to President Rodrigo Duterte, Philippines National Police Chief Director General Oscar David Albayalde, and CIDG Director Roel B. Obusan, a Pangasinensi from Manaoag town.

The mayor had been writing the power-that-be before whenever he saw shenanigans committed by law enforcers.

“Somebody wanted to paint my town as disordered. One of my village chiefs was assassinated last June without even a known reason”.

The kapitan who was shot to death by sicarious or killers riding in tandem on a motorcycle was  Sto. Domingo PB Romulo Agbayani who was peppered with the lethal bullets of assassins’ favorite .45 caliber in front of his house.

Since then public officials of Sual, host of a wharf and the 1,200 megawatts coal power plant that pays her hundreds of millions of pesos yearly, feared the abuses of the law enforcement.

***

To educate our readers how to prevent these abuses, here under are my modest contributions how search warrant is being implemented.

PROCEDURES

Section 2 Article III (Bill of Rights of the Philippines Constitution states the requisites  for  issuance of a  Search  Warrant:

1)      A  search  warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense  to  be  determined  personally  by  the  judge  after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may produce;

2)      Description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

NOTE:Please remember those words that I underscored. Any violation of each of them will see a warrant to search and seize thrown into the trash can. Notwithstanding the judge chides the police or the member of the National Bureau of Investigation While they brace for charges by the offended party they raided.

The explanation in No.1 is “one specific offense” like violation of Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act).

 Explanation in No. 2 is “description of the place” means if it is House No. 7 the searching team would not search House No. 14 even if their “complainant” or “witness who has personal knowledge”, say the nemesis of the Kapitan, meant that house is No. 14 not No. 7.

The Supreme Court said, in G.R. No. 129035 in August 22, 2002, that: “What  is  controlling  is  what  is  stated  in  the  warrant,  and  not what the peace officers  had in mind, even if they were the ones who gave the description to the court”. 

    This, my dear Watson, is to prevent abuses in the service of search warrants.

The thing to be searched and seized should be specific, if it is M-16 Armalite rifle, it should be that gun.

How about if the law enforcers stumbled on a hand grenade or a sachet of shabu?

The high court said that they could be confiscated but could not be used to charge the subject.

“Anything seized illegally must be returned to the owner unless it is mala prohibita.  In such a case, it should be kept in custodia legis”.

Section 8 Article 126 of the Rules of Court: Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses.  –  No  search  of  a  house,  room,  or  any  other premises  shall  be  made  except  in  the  presence  of  the  lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. 
NOTE:    The  Two - Witness  Rule  only  applies  in  the  absence  of  the  lawful occupant of the premises searched.

It’s DIFFERENT to the warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest when the subject had been found to possess a sachet of drug or a grenade or other illegal item after the police frisked him. The illegal item could be used against him in court but not if they were found during a search in the house where the warrant looked for an Armalite rifle.   

Protection of illegal search is more superior than the warrant of arrest. The wisdom there was “The right against unreasonable search and seizure is a core right implicit in the natural right to life, liberty and property. 

Section 9 Article 126 of Rules of Court: Time of making search. – The warrant must direct that it be served  in  the  day  time,  unless  the  affidavit  asserts  that  the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. 

Sec.  10 Article 126 of Rules of Court: Validity of search warrant.  – A search  warrant  shall  be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void. 

Question: Can the owner of the things illegally seized be made to sign the receipt from the police or the NBI's enforcer?

Anwer: No.  Since  this  would  be  tantamount  to  a  violation  of  one’s  right against   self-incrimination. It is a confession without the assistance of counsel. 

Question: Is the presence of two elected public officials or a member of the media necessary in a search and seizure of an illegally hidden Armalite rifle?

Answer: No. The presence of two elected public officials and either member of the National Prosecution Service or the media are during the inventory of a search of dangerous drugs only as embodied on Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act).

MY PROBLEM: The media members being requested by the law enforcement agencies to join them as witness for the inventory of the corpus delicti (body of the crime) is whenever the case against the culprit or culprits are filed in court, the poor member of the fourth estate is hailed too as witness under the pain of contempt by the tribunal if he failed to appear.

The other downside of these eager beaver media men, thanks to the sum given by the enforcers, they and their family become target of the assassination by those they incriminate in court.

“Hindi na kayo natuto! It’s time for Congress to amend this rule. Media men are created by our democratic government not only “to  comfort the afflicted, afflicts the comfortable” as what American humorist and writer Finley Peter Dunne cited but susmariosep be a part of the acrimonious healthy democracy that saw a fiery Senator Trillanes spewing fire on a peeved President Duterte.

Ang saya-saya di ba?

READ MY OTHER COLUMN:

Police Stop and Frisk Help Lower Shooting Incidents

(You can read my selected columns at mortzortigoza.blogspot.com and articles at Pangasinan News Aro. You can send comments too at totomortz@yahoo.com)