Lumanog is a kidney transplant patient who had to face serious health
risk inside his detention center while waiting for the review of their
case to be concluded and to proved their innocence should there be new
trial. His ailment is believed to have been the result of the harsh
conditions in jail and the brutal torture he had suffered for days
under police’ secret detention after his arrest in June 1996. Lumanog
presently suffers lack of medical supplies and attention due to jail
poor condition and lack of jail resources. There are serious concerns
his condition could get worst if this is not adequately addressed.
There are various circumstances where the accused’ could have proved
their innocence and upheld the ABB involvement but this were not
given attention by the court. They argued that the ABB admission into
Abadilla’s murder had been reinforced by the ballistics recovered from
the crime scene that shows a match between the group’s previous
acknowledge urban killings. The ABB also admitted and reiterated this
matter in public in several occasions. Also in January 2000, an
unidentified ABB personality turned over to Fr. Roberto Reyes an
Omega watch taken from Abadilla’s body when he was shot four years
after the murder in an effort to absolve the five accused and to
reiterate the ABB’s responsibility to the murder. In separate
affidavits and statements by a ranking ABB operative as mentioned in
27 May 1999 resolution of the National Amnesty Commission it also
mentioned the plot to kill Abadilla. The court during the trial
however did not consider all these.
Even though the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) had proven in their
investigation that the accused were brutally tortured and recommended
for the filing of criminal charges against the policemen involved in
June 1996, the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor (OCSP) have
failed to act on their recommendation promptly. The prosecutor
assigned to handle the case, State Prosecutor Marilyn Campomanes, has
failed to resolve the preliminary investigation of the complaint for a
period of five years. Campomanes was supposed to establish probable
cause to hold the policemen for trial. But when the OCSP resolve the
complaint on 21 August 2001, it ordered to dismiss the complaint
under the ground of “sub judice rule”.
The OCSP resolution argued that since the accused’ murder case is
still pending for review by Supreme Court they find it appropriate
not to “unduly influence or bend the mind of the Supreme Court on
deciding the murder case”. It in effect resolved to refrain from
conducting the preliminary investigation of the victim’s complaint of
torture and human rights violations against the policemen. It took the
OCSP five years to decide that the preliminary investigation of the
case could not be acted upon.
But on 8 January 2003, the preliminary investigation of the complaint
was ordered to be reopened by former acting Justice Department
Secretary Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez. The offences mentioned that could
be charged against the policemen involved however were minor and did
not include allegations of torture. The said charges include only for
violations of Articles 263, 286, 124 and 125 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) and the Republic Act RA 7438. These articles constitute
violations for grave coercion, physical injuries, arbitrary
detention, delay in the delivery of detained persons, rights of
persons arrested and detained under custodial investigation.
When the accused legal counsel filed a motion before the Department
of Justice urging them to look into allegations of torture and to
also file appropriate charges, no response have so far been received
on this matter. Later it was found out that the case was already
turned over to one of the offices of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Since the complaints were transferred to the Ombudsman, there has not
been substantial progress known. The policemen involved have so far
not been charged yet in court despite the complaint filed and pending
for nearly eleven years.
Not only the OCSP and DoJ has caused enormous delays on acting the
accused complaint or torture and human rights violations, the State
Prosecutor in charged in handling the case, Campomanes, has likewise
showed negligence and lack of competence to resolved the case
promptly. Campomanes’ improper handling of the case’ documents
likewise resulted to the loss of some of its files.
Campomanes have been charged with administrative case because of her
negligence and lack of competence. It is reported that Campomanes in
some occasion took the case’ records to her home which is illegal.
Although the charges, which includes undue delay in the resolution of
the preliminary investigation, for violating the complainants’ right
to speedy disposition of their cases and for mishandling and missing
records of the case, have been filed against her these complaints did
not show any progress.
In March 2006, a complaint was filed before the United Nation’s Human
Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol complaint procedure
regarding the Supreme Court’s undue transfer of the review of the
case to the Court of Appeals that resulted to the further delay. In
their complaint, they clearly pointed out that the high court’s undue
transfer of the case to its subordinate court, even though it could
have conclude the review of the case, demonstrates the lack of
domestic judicial remedies to challenge the high court’s decision.
This could have at least prevented further court delays. The
complaint was about the undue transfer of a death penalty review case
and not about the death penalty decision.
