Respondent in Japanese kidnapping seeks dismissal of case

MANILA, Philippines—One of the respondents in the kidnapping and alleged extortion of Japanese national Noriyo Ohara asked the Department of Justice (DoJ) to dismiss the criminal case filed against him.

In his 15-page supplement to his motion to dismiss, respondent Virgelito “Labsky” Gutierrez  said the fact finding inquiry by the DoJ panel cannot be used as basis for their criminal prosecution.

“It is not a preliminary investigation that establishes a criminal responsibility on the part of the respondents by which they are therefore still constitutionally presumed innocent but in the eyes of the DoJ website viewer, they are already guilty as hell which is conclusive and beyond question,” Gutierrez said.

Gutierrez, through counsel Romeo Esmero said the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 8 who already issued an injunction on the DoJ investigation already prohibited the use of the fact finding investigation as basis for the prosecution.

“It should therefore not anymore continue such preliminary investigation and it should forthwith dismiss this case because the same is a clear violation of such preliminary injunction order,” he said.

The fact finding report of the DoJ recommended that former National Bureau of Investigation chief Magtanggol Gatdula be prosecuted for the alleged abduction and extortion of Noriyo Ohara.

Aside from Gutierrez, also recommended for prosecution include Mario Garcia, Special Investigator and former Chief of the NBI-Security Management Division (NBI-SMD); Security Volunteer Jay Ducusin; Raul Dimaano, Special Assistant of Director Gatdula and Jose Odelon Cabillan, Special Investigator and former Executive Officer of the NBI-SMD and NBI asset Chona Elen.

Then, last February, Ohara filed her own complaint against Gatdula and the NBI officials which, according to the DoJ was used as basis in their preliminary investigation.

But Gutierrez accused the DoJ of removing the last page of Ohara’s affidavit to make it appear that her complaint affidavit was subscribed and sworn to only on Feb. 15, 2012.

“The date of those affidavits in which it were reflected thereon that those were made on Dec. 27, 2011 or Dec. 28, 2011 would show even by a re-subscription under oath thereon that those were the same affidavits used in the DoJ fact finding panel investigation and thus violative of the preliminary injunction order by a circumvention thereon,” he said.