By R. San Juan @jrsanjuan1573THE Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City has dismissed the illegal possession of firearms and explosives case filed against National Democratic Front (NDF) of the Philippines peace consultant Rafael Baylosis last year.
In a 27-page order, the court said the prosecution’s evidence were insufficient to support a finding of conviction against Baylosis and his co-accused Roque Guillermo.
It added that the arrest of Baylosis and Guillerno at Aurora Boulevard corner Katipunan Avenue was illegal, and the subsequent search conducted on them by the police, as well as the purported confiscation of firearms and explosives in their posession, cannot be used as evidence.
“It is viewed that the confiscation of the subject items is illegal. It is not a product of a search incidental to a lawful arrest, or a stop and frisk search, or the plain view doctrine,” Quezon City RTC Branch 100 Presiding Judge Editha Mina Aguba pointed out in granting the demurrer to evidence filed by the accused.
A demurrer to evidence is a pleading filed by the defense that seeks the immediate dismissal of the case due to the insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.
The court also noted the inconsistencies on the testimonies and statements executed by police witnesses with regard to the arrest of the accused.
Judge Aguba also directed the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology in Bicutan to immediately release Baylosis from jail unless he is confined for another cause.
At the same time, the court ordered Guillermo’s cash bond of P120,000 was to be immediately released.
Baylosis was arrested on January 31, 2018, following the cancelation of the peace talks with the Communist Party of the Philippines-National Democratic Front.
The government, however, denied that his arrest was an offshoot of the failed peace talks.
The police claimed that the arrest stemmed from a tip that some armed men were seen at the area.
“As such, this court cannot attach the presumption of regularity of performance of their functions. Besides, the same cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence of two accused. Exoneration of accused is, thus, in order,” the court ruled.