Court denies motion that threatens Herbert Bautista's right vs self-incrimination | ABS-CBN

Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
Court denies motion that threatens Herbert Bautista's right vs self-incrimination
Court denies motion that threatens Herbert Bautista's right vs self-incrimination
Adrian Ayalin,
ABS-CBN News
Published Jun 16, 2023 02:55 PM PHT
|
Updated Jun 16, 2023 02:56 PM PHT

MANILA — The Sandiganbayan 7th Division denied the motion for interrogatories and admission filed by government prosecutors in the P32 million graft case of former Quezon City mayor Herbert Bautista.
MANILA — The Sandiganbayan 7th Division denied the motion for interrogatories and admission filed by government prosecutors in the P32 million graft case of former Quezon City mayor Herbert Bautista.
In a resolution dated June 13, 2023, the court said it would not allow the prosecution to serve a request for admission to Bautista in recognition of his right against self-incrimination.
In a resolution dated June 13, 2023, the court said it would not allow the prosecution to serve a request for admission to Bautista in recognition of his right against self-incrimination.
The motion stemmed from the admissions or statements made by Bautista in a separate motion he filed before the court.
The motion stemmed from the admissions or statements made by Bautista in a separate motion he filed before the court.
The court's resolution did not specify the admissions he supposedly made.
The court's resolution did not specify the admissions he supposedly made.
ADVERTISEMENT
“In conclusion, absent any cogent reason to apply the rules on interrogatories to the present case, the suppletory application of the modes of discovery is unwarranted,” the court said in the resolution penned by Division Chairperson Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Zaldy Trespeces and Georgina Hidalgo.
“In conclusion, absent any cogent reason to apply the rules on interrogatories to the present case, the suppletory application of the modes of discovery is unwarranted,” the court said in the resolution penned by Division Chairperson Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Zaldy Trespeces and Georgina Hidalgo.
The prosecution filed their motion last May 17, reasoning out that Bautista had already made admissions in his separate motion.
The prosecution filed their motion last May 17, reasoning out that Bautista had already made admissions in his separate motion.
The prosecution stressed they were not requesting the admission of any fact not yet admitted because they only sought clarification on Bautista’s previous admission.
The prosecution stressed they were not requesting the admission of any fact not yet admitted because they only sought clarification on Bautista’s previous admission.
Bautista’s lawyers however invoked his right to be presumed innocent and his right to remain silent.
Bautista’s lawyers however invoked his right to be presumed innocent and his right to remain silent.
The lawyers also countered that the prosecution had no legal basis as interrogatories and request for admission are not included in the allowed modes of discover in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The lawyers also countered that the prosecution had no legal basis as interrogatories and request for admission are not included in the allowed modes of discover in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The court noted that only the Rules of Civil Procedure mention interrogatories and requests for admission.
The court noted that only the Rules of Civil Procedure mention interrogatories and requests for admission.
“Verily, while the rules of civil procedure, precisely those governing modes of discovery, may be applied in a suppletory manner to cases involving criminal procedure, nothing on record exists to warrant such application to the instant case,” the court said.
“Verily, while the rules of civil procedure, precisely those governing modes of discovery, may be applied in a suppletory manner to cases involving criminal procedure, nothing on record exists to warrant such application to the instant case,” the court said.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT