Ceres drivers fight back-5

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

 

The complaining drivers said that after their interrogation, they were brought to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City by respondents’ Pugoy, Sealmoy, and Entor. There they were again “threatened and intimidated to sign affidavits (prepared by respondents) they have not read and understood and have these affidavits subscribed before the City Prosecutor on duty against their will.”

In fact, the complaint continued, before the drivers were directed to proceed to the OCP to have their respective affidavits subscribed, Entroduction, Moreno and Tolentino were ordered by Atty. Pugoy, ”if you will be asked by the fiscal just answer ‘Yes’ and do not add any more or say anything so we can finish immediately.”

This is serious. The lawyers prepared the false narrative, forced the complainants to sign their statements which were lies and they had not seen, and even prevented the affiants from telling the truth in the event the prosecutor asked questions. I wondered, however, whether the prosecutor inquired about the contents of the affidavits. I presume the prosecutor relied on the veracity of the affidavits because Pugoy was there and merely believed that a fellow lawyer would not fabricate a lie and force people to swear to it.

We recall Pugoy washing his hands in the Nico Causing case so he probably will also be denying this part of the complaint. It would be his word against the three complainants.

Moreover, Complainants Entroduction, Moreno, Guinanao and Tolentino “have spelled out and identified specific untruthful statements, which respondents have deliberately inserted in the affidavits they (respondents) have prepared for these Complainants, the veracity of which, Complainants have vehemently denied, in their respective and separate Affidavits.”

There are photocopies of affidavits that the lawyers prepared but the drivers refused to sign. The comparison would be interesting.

It would be fascinating also to read the counter-affidavits of the lawyers of Leo Rey and compare them with the allegations of the drivers. The lawyers would be adept in making the counter but somehow a lie always comes out like a sore thumb. I hope I will be able to get hold of the affidavits of the respondents.

The drivers fought back by filing a case against the VTI management personnel, the conniving company lawyers and assorted others who jumped into the fray. We have listed their names at the start of this series.

The complaint cited the respective and separate affidavits of the drivers where they “detailed the grand conspiracy put into motion by respondents in obtaining perjured statements from them, relating to the events of August 7, 2019, by employing force,

intimidations and other coercive means and to falsely accuse the Y4 as the supposed architect behind what, clearly and indubitably, were voluntary and personal decisions of the drivers and conductors to park their respective units at the Compound.”

The premise now established, the complaint, to repeat, pointed out that “this grand conspiracy came on the heels of the DOJ resolution dismissing the Carnapping charges filed by respondent Banibane against the Y4. It was not a mere coincidence. The complaint now call on our justice system that the respondents be indicted.”

The indictment is for “committing subornation of perjury defined and penalized in Art. 183 in relation to Art. 17 of the RPC (Revised Penal Code.” Article 183 refers to those who make untruthful statements under oath while Article 17 covers actions of those who enforced or willingly took part in the commission of a crime – the conspiracy.

The complaint identified the “elements of perjury defined and penalized under Article 183” and named the people who are liable under Article 17. As this column is not a legal treatise, it is sufficient that we know what the case is about, the purpose of the alleged crime, those involved in the subornation of perjury, and why they are charged.

Subornation is not only inducing others to tell a lie but also furnishing the lie. Perjury (perjurium) itself is a very serious offense in any society even during ancient times because it is a willful breaking of an oath that called on God (or king) as a witness. The penalty is usually death. Subornation of perjury is worse and carried the same or higher punishment than the perjurer.

We continue tomorrow.