5 protesters in ‘Occupy Mendiola’ rally ordered released from police custody

Five protesters who were arrested in a clash with antiriot policemen in a rally near Chino Roces (formerly Mendiola) Bridge on Wednesday were released Thursday evening from the custody of the Manila Police District (MPD) after the charges filed against them were set for further investigation.

Nathaniel Aguilar, 19; Karl Nadunza, 19; Wilfredo Monte, 31; Jed Aquino, 23; and a 17-year-old student of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines were ordered released by Manila city chief inquest prosecutor Elaine Cerezo and turned over in  the custody of their lawyer Vicente Jaime Topacio.

Cerezo directed the MPD General Assignment Section investigators to conduct a further probe into the charges of sedition, illegal assembly under Batas Pambansa 880, or the Public Assembly Act of 1985, resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or agents of a person in authority, tumults and other disturbances to public order, malicious mischief, and physical injuries filed against the five who belong to the groups Anakbayan, Anakpawis, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Alliance of Concerned Teachers and the League of Filipino Students.

A further investigation was also ordered into the charges filed against protest leaders and organizers Vencer Crisostomo, of the Kabataan party-list; Joel Maglungsod, of the Anakpawis party-list; Charisse Banez, Alvin Evangelista and Andrew Zarate, of Anakbayan.

Cerezo said she has set a preliminary investigation because the policemen hurt in the clash could not say who attacked them.

She added that the illegal assembly case would not prosper against the five protesters because none of the leaders or organizers identified were arrested.

“The five men arrested were only followers, and the law, specifically BP 880, states that only leaders and organizers are liable,” Cerezo said.

Tumults and other disturbances to public order require three or more armed persons who commit violence, but none of the five protesters were armed when they were arrested, and the charge of sedition will not stick in the absence of a public uprising.

The alleged malicious mischief case, stemming from the alleged destruction of police and fire department properties, could likewise not be pursued because the investigators did not present an estimate on the cost of the damage.