Vendors score moral victory vs Dagupan market marshals
CITY PROSECUTOR’S REQUEST TO INHIBIT DENIED
THE complainants in the case for direct bribery filed against members of the Market Marshal Task Force of Dagupan scored a moral victory when the Regional Prosecutor denied the request of the City Prosecutors Office to inhibit itself in handling the investigation and prosecution of the case.
A letter of Regional Prosecutor Nonnatus Caesar Rojas to City Prosecutor Victoria Cabrera dated March 22, 2022 stated partly: We find the respondents’ supposed reason for (request of) inhibition as without sound and legal bases in order to sufficiently warrant your office’s inhibition from handling the case.”
Cabrera’s Motion for Inhibition dated March 14, 2022 stated “in order not to put any doubt of partiality and to maintain the utmost respect the Honorable Inquest Assistant City Prosecutor and to serve the best interest of fair and just play, there is an imperative need that this Honorable Office to inhibit itself in conducting further proceedings of this complaint x x x”.
This, after respondents Michael “Bugoy” Hernando, head of the Market Marshal Task Force; Marvin Barrozo and Marie Lomibao assailed the statement of the Inquest Assistant Prosecutor that there were “documents” attached to the statements of the complainants “that would prove the claims of the complainants that the same tends to show that there is already a “pre-set of mind”.
The complaint was filed before the City Prosecutors Office by members of the Small-scale Fish Consignment and Retailers at Riverside led by Marietta Barrientos. The group alleged in their complaint that the respondents demanded and collected P25,000 monthly protection money from them, aside from the P100,000 that Hernando obtained as alleged loan, which he never paid.
Regional Prosecutor Rojas pointed out that the respondent’s request is not based on grounds as provided for by law, nor was it clearly shown that the investigating prosecutor was biased, harbored under the conflicts of interest or acted with partiality in resolving the case.
Thus, Rojas said, the resolution of the respondents’ motion for reconsideration must ensue subject to rules pertaining to review of resolutions, adding that in view of the foregoing, “ your request for inhibition is hereby denied”.
At the same time, Rojas directed the City Prosecutors Office “ to resolve the respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration up to its logical conclusion”. (Leonardo Micua)
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
