ILOILO – A principal suspect in the death of Ajuy, Iloilo vice mayor Ramon Rojas Jr. in 2008 was arrested yesterday afternoon at the Iloilo Airport in the municipality of Cabatuan. The murder case has dragged for 11 years now.
Vicente Espinosa of Barangay Lanjagan, Ajuy did not resist the arresting officers, according to Police Major Jonathan Pinuela, chief of the Iloilo Police Provincial Office’s intelligence section.
The arrest warrant for murder was issued by Judge Ma. Yolanda Panaguiton-Gaviño of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 34. No bail bond was recommended.
According to Pinuela, Espinosa denied having anything to do with the murder.
Espinosa had just returned from Metro Manila.
Pinuela said they received information about Espinosa’s scheduled arrival so they prepared for the serving of the suspect’s arrest warrant.
“According sa information nga nabaton ko kag manifestation kaina ni Espinosa, isa sia sa gin-akusar nga nagpapatay sa vice mayor. Isa sia sa mga suspects, indi nagtiro kundi nagsugo principal by inducement,” said Pinuela.
THE CRIME
Rojas, 49, was shot to death by two motorcycle-riding armed men in Sitio Casamata, Barangay Central, Ajuy around 5:30 a.m. of May 22, 2008 while doing his routine early morning walking exercise.
He died of nine gunshot wounds on the head and body.
Rojas’ regular walking companion, Central barangay captain Ferdinand Nacionales, said Rojas died instantly.
Nacionales said he was lucky to escape from the gunmen who fled onboard a Honda XRM motorcycle.
Rojas, a vocal campaigner against illegal fishing in his town, had no bodyguards. He was shot in the area where he usually did his daily walking and jogging rounds.
The gunmen were apparently waiting for him there, said Nacionales.
Rojas attempted to flee after he was hit by the first shot but one of the killers in a blue jacket went up to him and did the finishing shot, Nacionales said.
According to Nacionales, the gunmen fled towards the adjacent town of Sara.
SUSPECTS
On May 26, 2008 two men were identified and charged with murder as the gunmen – Edgar Cordero of Barangay Sibaguan, Lambunao, Iloilo and Dennis Cartagena of Barangay Baraulan, San Enrique, Iloilo. Both were believed to be active members of the notorious Roger Palma robbery and gun-for-hire group operating in central and northern Iloilo.
At the time of the filing of the murder complaint, the two men were at large. They turned out to be hiding in Mindanao.
Cordero was arrested in Aug. 29, 2008 in Butuan City, Agusan del Norte after he and Cordero were ambushed by unidentified armed men. Cordero died from multiple bullet wounds.
Cartagena later executed a sworn statement accusing Espinosa as the mastermind who paid them and Lindsey “Bebe” Buenavista as the one who planned the crime.
CASE BACKGROUND
The initial murder complaint filed against Cartagena and Cordero was filed by the Ajuy municipal police station before the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor’s Office.
In June 2, 2008 a second complaint was filed, this time against Espinosa and Buenavista.
In their respective counteraffidavits, Espinosa and Buenavista denied involvement in Rojas’ killing.
In Resolution dated Aug. 12, 2008, the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor’s office recommended the filling of an Information for Murder against Cordero and Cartagena but dismissed the case against Espinosa and Buenavista for lack of probable cause.
Eventually, then Acting Justice Secretary Alberto Agra issued Department Order Mo. 409 directing the State Prosecutor of Iloilo to file an Amended Information for Murder in Criminal Case No. 2008-4303.
Accordingly, the State Prosecutor filed with RTC Branch 38 an Amended Information for Murder in Criminal Case. No, 2008-4303, naming Espinosa and Buenavista among the accused.
On July 16, 2010, Espinosa filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause. He argued that Cartagena’s sworn statement was not admissible pursuant to Sections 30 and 33, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
He also contended that the panel of investigators overstretched their authority why they took into consideration the affidavits of witnesses Renyl Iran and Fidel Lavega.
RTC, Branch 38 issued an order on Aug. 12, 2010 dismissing the Amended Information against Espinosa and Buenavista, ruling that the resolution of the prosecutors to indict the respondents was based solely on the extrajudicial confession of Cartagena that and no independent evidence was considered to corroborate the confession.
Rojas’ son Ramon Caesar Rojas took the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA).
CA ORDER
In March 2017, CA’s Special Nineteenth Division ordered the reinstatement of the murder charges filed against Espinosa and Buenavista.
The CA reversed the orders (orders dated Aug. 12, 2010 and Oct. 7, 2010) of RTC Branch 38 in Criminal Case No. 2008-4303) that dismissed the Amended Information for Murder against Espinosa and Buenavista.
The appellate court’s order reversing RTC Branch 38’s Judge Florian Gregory D. Abalajon’s orders was dated Feb. 8, 2017. It was penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig.
The petitioner, Rojas’ son Ramon Caesar Rojas, raised the following issues to the CA:
* The trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he ordered the dismissal of the Amended Information against Espinosa and Buenavista despite the extrajudicial confession of co-accused Cartagena and corroborating evidence.
* The trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that the extrajudicial confession of Cartagena was inadmissible as evidence under Section 30 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
* The trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for excluding the extrajudicial confession in his determination of the assailed orders.
In granting the petition, the CA stated: “The judge must satisfy himself that there is probable cause to place the accused under custody so as not to frustrate the ends of justice. (The) determin(ation of) probable cause…needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believed that it was committed by the accused.”
According to the CA, “it need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.”
Citing all the pieces of evidence presented before the investigating prosecutors, the CA “find that there is substantial basis to support a finding of probable cause against the private respondents contrary to the respondent Judge’s posture. Needless to state, the dismissal of the case was attended with grave abuse of discretion.”/PN
