The camp of Cebu 8, the 8 individuals arrested and detained after holding a protest against the Anti-Terror Bill are seeking a dismissal of the charge or charges against them. | Contributed photo
CEBU CITY, Philippines – The Municipal Trial Court in Cities has dismissed the remaining charges against the eight individuals, collectively known as “Cebu 8”, who were arrested during a protest at the University of the Philippines (UP) Cebu campus on June 5, 2020.
The court found the evidence insufficient, which now puts the four-year legal ordeal for the accused to rest.
On June 27, Presiding Judge Amy Rose A. Soler-Rellin of MTCC Branch 9 ruled to dismiss the charges of violating Section 13(a) of B.P. Blg. 880 and simple resistance and disobedience to an agent of a person in authority under Article 151, Paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
The dismissed cases, criminal case no. M-CEB-20-02346-CR and criminal case no. M-CEB-20-02348-CR, involved Jaime Paglinawan, Johanna Veloso, Al Ingking, Bern Cañedo, April Dyan Gumanao, Nar Porlas, Clement Corominas, and Janry Ubal.
In August 2020, the same presiding judge of the MTC dismissed the criminal case for violation of Section 9(e) of Republic Act 11332, also known as the Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of Public Health Concern Act, in relation to Executive Order No. 79, due to lack of merit.
READ MORE:
Cebu 8 seeks dismissal of charges
‘Cebu 8’ lawyers to pursue countercharges vs arresting cops
Calls to junk Anti-terror Law continue a year after ‘Cebu-8’ arrest
In a 10-page court ruling dated June 27, 2024, the following grounds are discussed for the dismissal of two charges.
Section 13(a) of B.P. Blg. 880 (The Public Assembly Act of 1985) prohibits holding a public assembly without a written permit where one is required or using such a permit in an unauthorized location.
However, the law also specifies that no one can be punished for participating in a peaceful assembly.
“The holding of any public assembly as defined in this Act by any leader or organizer without having first secured that written permit where a permit is required from the office concerned, or the use of such permit for such purposes in any place other than those set out in said permit: Provided, however, That no person can be punished or held criminally liable for participating in or attending an otherwise peaceful assembly.”
For criminal liability under this provision, it must be proven that a permit was required, the perpetrator was the leader or organizer, and no permit was secured or it was used in an unauthorized location.
READ MORE: Vindication for De Lima as last drug case junked
These elements were not proven by the prosecution, according to the court.
According to Sec. 4 of B.P. Blg. 880, a written permit is required for public assemblies in public places, but not if they are held in freedom parks, private property with owner consent, or on campuses of government-owned educational institutions.
The prosecution claimed the protest was held along Gorordo Avenue, a public place. However, the defense argued that evidence and witness testimony were inconclusive about whether the protest occurred on a public road or UP Cebu property.
Testimonies revealed doubts about the exact location of the protest. Police officers could not definitively state whether it was on public or UP Cebu property.
Without clear evidence that the protest took place in a public area, it cannot be determined if a written permit was necessary.
Even if the protest was in a public area and a permit was needed, the prosecution failed to prove the accused were the leaders or organizers. Police officers arrested whoever they could without identifying specific roles, and no substantial evidence was presented to confirm the accused as leaders or organizers.
Meanwhile, the charge of simple resistance and disobedience to an agent of a person in authority under Art. 151, Paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code was based on alleged disobedience to police orders to stop the protest, supposedly violating Cebu City E.O. 79, which prohibited mass gatherings.
However, E.O. 79 did not absolutely prohibit all mass gatherings but limited certain types. The protest, an exercise of the right to peaceably assemble, was not among the prohibited gatherings.
“The staging of a protest such as the one in the instant case does not appear to be among those mass gatherings that were prohibited under the GCO. Sec. 14(A) of E.O. 79 prohibited “Im]ass gatherings such as, but not limited to, movie screenings, concerts, sporting events, and other entertainment activities, community assemblies, cockpit operations, and non-essential work gatherings.”
The defense correctly pointed out that the right to assemble is protected under the Constitution.
The court concluded that the protest did not violate B.P. Blg. 880 or Cebu City E.O. 79, and the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Moreover, the protest was not for social, work, entertainment, or leisure purposes as defined in Sec. 14(A) of E.O. 79, and there was no violation of B.P. Blg. 880.
Even if the accused ignored orders to stop the protest, the court stated that their actions were not criminal since they did not show clear disrespect, aggression, or intent to defy a lawful order.
The ruling further stated that the prosecution must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, the evidence did not meet this standard. A demurrer to evidence challenged the sufficiency of the prosecution’s case. The court must determine if there is enough evidence to support a verdict of guilt.
In this case, the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence, the court stated.
“A demurrer to evidence is an objection by one of the parties in an action to the effect
that the evidence that his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party filing the demurrer in effect challenges the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. The Court is thus tasked to ascertain if there is competent or sufficient evidence to establish a prima face case to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt. 12 Here, the prosecution evidence, in its entirety, failed to establish a prima face case to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt.”
Due to the insufficient evidence, the court granted the defense’s demurrers to evidence, which resulted in the dismissal of the cases against all accused.