Court orders arrest of 7 cops in Tondo torture case

A Manila court ordered the arrest of seven Manila Police District (MPD) policemen, including a superintendent, for allegedly torturing to death an arrested suspect, an act caught on video, after finding probable cause for charges to be filed against them.

They are Superintendent Rogelio Rosales Jr., Senior Inspector Joselito Binayug, Senior Police Officer 3 Joaquin de Guzman, SPO1 Rodolfo Ong Jr., SPO1 Dante Bautista, PO1 Nonito Binayug and PO1 Rex Binayug.

Rosales was previously the station commander of Manila Police District Meisic Station 11, where the alleged victim and robbery suspect, Darius Evangelista, was first taken into custody. Evangelista has not been found.

Senior Inspector Binayug headed the Asuncion police community precinct in Tondo, where the alleged torture was caught on video.

Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 1 Judge Tita Bughao-Alisuag also denied a motion filed by the policemen seeking to quash the information on the charge of violation of Republic Act 9745, or the Anti-Torture Act of 2009, particularly torture resulting in the death of any person.

The order resolves an urgent motion for judicial determination of probable cause filed by Inspector Binayug, the resolution of which could result in either the dismissal of the case or the issuance of an arrest warrant.

The judge found probable cause based on testimonies, in the form of sworn statements submitted to the court.

In a separate order, Alisuag resolved a motion to quash criminal information filed by Ong and PO1 Rex Binayug on the premises of the court’s lack of jurisdiction, lack of authority to conduct a preliminary investigation and the claim that there was no offense because there was no body recovered.

Alisuag ruled that only provincial directors, senior superintendents or  higher are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

The judge also clarified that the corpus delicti (body of the crime) “is the torture itself resulting in the death.” “To the court, whether the person of the victim in the case was recovered and/or retrieved, is of no moment,” it added.