Atty. Ferdinand Topacio, general,counsel of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), on Friday said, “Sen. De Lima is acting like a spoiled brat. She wants,the court to violate the Rules of Court to accommodate her. That is so ‘assuming,’ to use a colloquialism.”
“De Lima must be reminded that,she is now under a judicial process where it is the Rules of Court, not her rules that should be followed,” he added, advising,the Senator to just concentrate on her defense in the drug trade case instead of harping on technicalities.
He also warned her lawyers not,to cast “aspersions” to the Muntinlupa Regional Trial,Court Branch 204 who ordered her arrest.
“There is nothing illegal about,the warrant of arrest. It is Sen. Leila de Lima who is illegal. Her lawyers are,also doing something illegal when they cast aspersions on the validity of the warrant issued by Judge Juanita,Guerrero without any legal grounds. It is called ‘contempt of court’ and it is punishable by fine or imprisonment. They could also,get disbarred,” Topacio added.
Topacio explained that there is,nothing under Rule 117 of the Rules of Court that mandates that a motion,to quash must first be heard before a warrant is issued.
“Such a motion is directed against,the information and may be heard at anytime before arraignment, where an accused pleads ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. On the other hand, Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules mandates the,trial court to issue a warrant within 10 days from the filing of an information,” Topacio said.
“There is nothing illegal about,the warrant of arrest. It is Sen. Leila de Lima who is illegal. Her lawyers are,also doing something illegal when they cast aspersions on the validity of the warrant issued by Judge Juanita,Guerrero without any legal grounds. It is called ‘contempt of court’ and it is punishable by fine or imprisonment. They could also,get disbarred,” Topacio added.
Topacio explained that there is,nothing under Rule 117 of the Rules of Court that mandates that a motion,to quash must first be heard before a warrant is issued.
“Such a motion is directed against,the information and may be heard at anytime before arraignment, where an accused pleads ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. On the other hand, Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules mandates the,trial court to issue a warrant within 10 days from the filing of an information,” Topacio said.
source: inquirer
Post a Comment