Japer Gurung (right) and Junior Ramos —JOANNA ROSE AGLIBOT/FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — An Olongapo City court has acquitted two Aetas arrested in August 2020 for firing at military members, resulting in one soldier’s death.
Japer Gurung and Junior Ramos were the first individuals charged for violating Republic Act 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
While in detention, Gurung claimed they were tortured into admitting being members of the New Peoples’ Army (NPA) – an allegation that the military has denied.
Last February, the two dropped the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) as their counsel in a press conference by the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-Elcac).
The Public Attorneys’ Office (PAO) took over as counsel for the two men and filed a demurrer to evidence stating that the prosecution evidence against Gurung and Ramos is weak.
In their motion, PAO stressed that Gurung and Ramos were not positively identified by the soldiers; that the concept of profiling the two was merely an afterthought; and that due to a failure to identify the suspects, the firearms supposedly seized from them are doubtful.
“After a careful examination of the records, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proving the identifies of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime of violation of Section 4 of RA 11479. Thus, the case for violation of this law against the accused must be dismissed,” read the court’s ruling.
‘Material inconsistencies’
Olongapo Regional Trial Court Branch 97 Judge Melani Fay Tadili took note of the inconsistencies in the statements of soldier-witnesses, who claimed in their testimony before the court that they saw Gurung and Ramos during the firefight. They said they recognized the two men from the photos shown to them during the profiling of the suspects prior to the military operation.
However, the witnesses told a different story in their sworn statements.
“A perusal of the sworn statements of 2nd Lt. (Fritz) Entoma and 2nd Lt. (Ian) Oran would show that no declaration was made that they saw the accused during the gunfight. This was inconsistent with their testimony. They testified that they saw the accused during the gunfight. If they did see the accused, they could have easily said so in their sworn statements as they did in their judicial affidavits. They could have provided the accused’s distinct features, such as skin color, height, and hair type, and also their clothes’ color that would set them apart from the other armed persons. They could not have just referred [to] them as NPA members,” the court pointed out.
The testimony of Entoma and Oran was also contradicted by the testimony of another junior officer who told the court that no pictures of the accused and videos were shown to the soldiers during the pre-operational briefing.
The court explained that although affidavits are generally given weight if inconsistent with testimonies, this rule is not applicable in the instant case because two factors could cause misidentification, namely, the limited time for witnesses to see the accused before the crime and that several persons committed the crime.
The court said these “material inconsistencies” as to the identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime is a crucial aspect in sustaining a conviction.
“The inconsistencies of the soldiers on the presence of the accused at the crime scene and the profiling of the accused, and the presence of the danger signals in their identification of the accused cast doubts on their testimonies that accused were the perpetrators of the crime of violation of Section 4 of RA No. 11479,” the court ruled.
Since the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the two Aeta farmers were involved in the attack against the military, the court said their warrantless arrest is therefore invalid.
“Consequently, the shotgun ammunition, grenade, 7.66 mm ammunition, and instruments used for detonation seized from the accused are rendered inadmissible under the exclusionary principle in Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution. Considering that there is no more evidence to support the conviction of the accused, the cases for violation of RA No. 10951 or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulations Act and Presidential Decree 1866 against them must be dismissed,” the court said.
The two are expected to be released within the day, July 19.
Respect the court’s ruling
PAO Chief Persida Acosta called on the military to respect the court’s ruling.
“Nananawagan po ako sa mga kapatid natin sa Armed Forces na sanay ay irespeto ang desisyon ng korte at nakita naman natin ang deklarasyon ng ating mga sundalo jan na talagang hindi nila na-identify,” she said.
(I call on our military brothers to respect the court’s decision because we have seen that our soldiers failed to identify the two (referring to Gurung and Ramos.)
Acosta ordered the PAO-Olongapo to provide financial assistance to Gurung and Ramos.
‘Rightful acquittal’
NUPL President Atty. Edre Olalia, meanwhile, said “we are happy for our Aeta brothers who have been unjustly charged with frivolous and worse, trumped-up charges. That they have to undergo unimaginable torture, which remains undisputed to this day-made pawns by the very State that put them in jail in the first place and whose self-righteous agents even brazenly committed unethical conduct to snatch them away from their original counsel to defuse the focus on the patent injustice on them, is an indelible mark that is irreparable.”
“Their rightful acquittal is well-deserved even as they had to go through the ordeal for some time,” he added.
RELATED STORIES
Anti-Terror Law’s first hit: Two Aetas from Zambales – group
‘Tortured’ Aetas seek SC help against anti-terror law
Why the 2 Aetas quit joining the anti-terror law challengers