CA affirms kidnapping, serious illegal detention raps vs Palparan
This photo, taken on Sept.15, 2014, shows retired Army Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan Jr. being taken to the Philippine Army Headquarters in Fort Bonifacio for processing before being transferred to the AFP Custodial Center for kidnapping and serious illegal detention charges in connection with the 2006 disappearance of two University of the Philippines students. (Photo by RAFFY LERMA / Philippine Daily Inquirer)
The Court of Appeals (CA) on Tuesday affirmed the kidnapping and serious illegal detention charges filed against retired Army Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan.
In a 15-page decision promulgated Sept. 18 but made public only Tuesday, the 4th Division of the appeals court denied Palparan’s bid to have the arrest warrant issued against him recalled and the criminal complaint against him dismissed.
Palparan was charged for the 2006 abduction and disappearance of Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeño, two students from the University of the Philippines.
The appeals court said the order denying a motion to quash is merely an “interlocutory,” thus cannot be appealed nor can it be the subject of an appeal via petition for certiorari.
“Stated differently, the remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is for the movant accused to enter a plea, go to trial, and should the decision be adverse, reiterate on appeal from the final judgment and assign as error the denial of the motion to quash,” read the decision.
“The denial, being an interlocutory order, is not appealable, and may not be the subject of a petition for certiorari because the availability of other remedies in the ordinary course of law,” it added.
According to the appeals court, an interlocutory order may prosper if the appellant, in this case Palparan, could establish that the lower court issued the judgment or order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
In this case, however, Palparan “did not show that the trial court had no jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in denying the motion to quash, or gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in its denial.”
Furthermore, the CA said the allegations raised by Palparan in his petition for certiorari were factual and evidentiary in nature which should be ventilated in a full-blown trial.
The appeals court did not give weight to Palparan’s arguments that the Malolos Regional Trial Court disregarded his constitutional right to due process when it denied his motion to quash information and warrant of arrest on the same day it was filed on Aug. 18, 2014.
In denying Palparan’s motion, the trial court held that the new motion was just a repetition of his earlier motion it had already denied in its order dated April 3, 2012.
It held that the grounds and issues mentioned in the said motion to quash information and warrant of arrest were already passed upon in its April 3, 2012 resolution.
On Aug. 12, 2014, Palparan was arrested in a house in Santa Mesa, Manila, after three years in hiding.
He is currently held in a detention cell in Camp Aguinaldo in Quezon City.
The decision was written by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Elihu Ybanez.
/atm
