Thursday, June 30, 2005
Ombud asks court to deny cop bail
Arguing that the evidence against him is strong, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas formally asked the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to deny SPO4 Juanito Pajantoy’s petition to post bail.
Ombudsman Prosecutor Macaundas Hadjirasul, in a 19-page memorandum to RTC Judge Ireneo Gako, said that at least two people actually saw Pajantoy shoot suspected thief Omar Patiño, who was unarmed and almost on his knees and with both hands raised in surrender.
(Patiño’s real name was later established as Felipe Obedo.)
Three other witnesses corroborated the testimony given by the two.
“The above witnesses stood by the substance of their respective testimonies despite heavy, exhaustive, and to say the least, aggressive cross-examination not only by one but two counsels for the accused,” Hadjirasul said.
Testimonies
“The testimonies of those witnesses corroborate each other on material points, that is the accused shot the victim, Omar C. Patiño, who was unarmed, while the latter was raising his hands, and his knees slightly bent in a gesture of surrender and helplessness,” he said.
Gako ordered the submission of memoranda from both the Office of the Ombudsman and the defense. This is part of his proceedings in resolving Pajantoy’s petition for bail on the murder case filed against him by the Office of the Ombudsman for the Military.
Pajantoy, through lawyer Clarence Paul Oaminal, also submitted yesterday his memorandum to the July 15,2003 incident where he also allegedly shot by accident a fellow police officer, PO3 Michael Sarcol.
Pajantoy is being separately charged with homicide for that. He was supposedly aiming for Patiño when his shot missed and hit Sarcol. Both cops were chasing Patiño.
In his 11-page memorandum, Pajantoy said the prosecution failed to substantially prove that he intentionally shot Patiño. While he confirms the killing, he said it was in self-defense.
Oaminal said the fact that Patiño’s right hand was positive of gunpowder burns manifests that the robber fought it out with Pajantoy.
“The prosecution anchors its theory on the ‘tales’ of questionable witnesses.
The defense proffers the citadel of forensic evidence. A tale could be concocted, conjectures may be made on what a person could see, but forensic reports maims or kills a theory based on stories of alleged witnesses,” Pajantoy’s memorandum read.
Hadjirasul, in his memorandum, shot down Oaminal’s “citadel of forensic evidence” and said the presence of nitrates on Patiño’s cadaver does not prove that he engaged Pajantoy in a shootout.
First, he said Supt. Myrna Areola, head of the Police Crime Laboratory Forensic Branch, said nitrates may be obtained if one gets into contact with certain chemicals, pharmaceutical products and tobacco.
Also, if Pajantoy was close enough to Patiño at the time of the shooting, Patiño would also eventually test positive of gunpowder burns. Pajantoy was alone with Patiño at the time of the shooting. All other policemen initially with him at the start of the chase were assisting the fallen Sarcol.
Report
None of the witnesses presented saw Patiño with a firearm before or after he was shot. Only in Pajantoy’s sworn statement can be found the claim that Patiño was armed.
Second, Hadjirasul explained, the chemistry report on the nitrates was never substantiated.
“None of the documents offered by the defense in evidence has any probative value to counter the evidence of the prosecution, considering that no witness was presented to testify, and be cross-examined, on the contents of those documents,” he said.
While Oaminal presented Areola to court, Areola wasn’t the one who conducted the paraffin test. (KNR/With GN)
(June 30, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
