Abra Gov Valera to face trial for murder of political rival, says CA
MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals gave the go signal to a lower court to proceed with the murder trial against former Abra Governor Vicente Valera.
In a 19-page decision, the appellate court’s 10th division dismissed Valera’s petition questioning the Quezon City regional trial court resolution affirming the findings of the prosecution that he should be tried for death in 2006 of Representative Luis “Chito” Bersamin and the warrant of arrest issued against him.
Valera, together with Jerry Turqueza and Sergeant Leo Bello Hall has been accused of killing Bersamin, brother of Supreme Court Justice Lucas Bersamin; and his driver bodyguard, Senior Police Officer 1 Adelfo Ortega, as well as frustrated murder against Allan Sawadan at the Mount Carmel Church yard at New Manila, Quezon City.
The Quezon City prosecutor found probable cause to file murder and frustrated murder charges against Valera and his alleged accomplices.
Probable cause does not call for application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.
“As the term implies, probable cause is concerned with probability not absolute or even moral certainty. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man…,” the appeals court explained.
Upon filing in court, the Quezon City RTC Branch 84 issued a warrant for the arrest of Valera and his co-accused.
The respondents sought a motion for reconsideration and asked the court to suspend proceedings of the case but this was also dismissed.
In filing a petition with the Court of Appeals, Valera argued that the QC court should have made its own determination of probable cause before ordering their arrest, saying there is no evidence to show conspiracy in killing Bersamin and that the testimonies of witnesses were inadmissible.
But the appeals court through Associate Justice Hakim Abdulwahid said Valera’s petition lacked merit.
“Petitioner failed to establish that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against petitioner,” the appeals court said.
The appeals court also disagreed with Valera who said that a trial was not necessary because the affidavits of witnesses were inadmissible.
It pointed out that infirmities in affidavits were common in all courts. “It is almost always incomplete and inaccurate.”
“Generally, it is considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court and does not affect credibility of witnesses. As such, petitioner’s argument is presumptuous and lacks adequate basis,” the appeals court said.
Thus, the appeals court said that if there were infirmities as pointed out by Valera, his proper recourse would have been to proceed with the trial to prove his claim and if a decision is unfavorable to him, take the necessary appeal.
