The plea for release submitted by a suspect in custody in the killings of 10 people—among them governor Roel R. Degamo—in Pamplona town in Negros Oriental on March 4 was dismissed by the Manila regional trial court.
Joven C. Javier, one of the 11 people in custody accused of the deaths, asked for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, but RTC Judge Janice R. Yulo-Antero of Branch 16 rejected his request.
The judge also mandated Javier’s recommitment to the Manila City jail in the ruling he made on July 5, 2023.
“The Department of Justice welcomes the decision of the Court in the petition for Habeas Corpus,” DOJ Assistant Secretary Jose Dominic F. Clavano IV said yesterday. “The decision states in very simple terms that there was no basis to file the petition in the first place.”
The DOJ representative claimed that the court system is now “aware of the dilatory and diversionary tactics of lawyers that seek to further the conspiracy behind the Pamplona massacre.”
According to Javier’s appeal for release, he is “being unlawfully detained and deprived of his liberty without any formal charge or judicial warrant.”
Antero, on the other hand, said that Javier’s claim was disproved at a hearing held on May 30 last year when “the petitioner Joven Calibjo Javier was produced in court with Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Richard Fadullon and State Solicitor Erika Frances Buluran-Monzon appearing for Respondents.”
“SDSP Fadullon argued that contrary to the allegations of the petitioner, the latter is not unlawfully restrained of his liberty as an Information of Illegal Possession of Firearms and an Information for three counts of Murder have already been filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila and is currently pending before Branch 40 and 51 thereof, respectively,” the judge said.
“It appears from the respondent’s return and the documents attached thereto that the deprivation of liberty of petitioner is lawful,” the judge ruled.
“In the case at bar, it appears that the petitioner is deprived of liberty under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law, the return is thus considered prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint. The petitioner has failed to present evidence to rebut or contradict such.”
