Ombudsman: Robin ‘ignored’ summons in Bato ‘escape’ probe

Sen. Robinhood Padilla. INQUIRER PHOTO / NIÑO JESUS ORBETA

Look who’s talking.

Sen. Robinhood Padilla, who earlier this week dared a witness in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte to face a case filed against him, has “ignored” the summons of the Office of the Ombudsman for him to respond to a complaint over his alleged role in the “escape” of Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa in May.

Article continues after this advertisement

On June 23, Assistant Ombudsman Moreno Generoso asked Padilla, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano and dismissed Senate Sergeant-at-arms Mao Aplasca to file, “within a nonextendible period of 15 days,” their answer to a June 3 obstruction of justice complaint filed by the group Tindig Pilipinas.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

But Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said Padilla, as of this week, “has not said anything about the cases and the summons given to him.”

“Deadline has passed. He chooses to ignore the Ombudsman, then so be it,” Remulla said at a press conference on Friday.

“Well, we will decide. The resolution will be done without his counteraffidavit. That’s his choice,” he added.

Only Alan replied

As of Friday, only Cayetano had filed his counter affidavit on the Tindig Pilipinas complaint.

Article continues after this advertisement

When asked, Remulla said he had not read the senator’s counter affidavit. “I do not micromanage the cases here,” he said.

Remulla said Aplasca had asked for a deadline extension, which the anti-graft body had granted.

Article continues after this advertisement

The Inquirer on Friday tried to reach Padilla, through his staff, for comments. The senator had yet to respond as of Friday night.

Just this week during Duterte’s impeachment trial, he questioned lawyer Jeremy Lotoc, the Bangsamoro regional director of the National Bureau of Investigation, on a case filed against him.

Lotoc, a witness for the prosecution, said he had yet to receive an official copy of a case from the Ombudsman but had seen a copy of a complaint that was given to him by the NBI. He told Padilla that he was waiting to be notified by the Ombudsman about the case.

Padilla later said, “’Di ba po dapat ang reaksyon ng isang tao kapag may kaso [ay] harapin (Do you agree that one’s reaction, when he has a case, is to face it)?”

“Maganda po maharap niyo kaagad lalong-lalo na po kasi napakahalaga po ngayon nito (It would be best that you face this immediately as this is important),” Padilla added.

On May 11, armed with the International Criminal Court warrant, NBI agents tried to arrest Dela Rosa when he surfaced in the Senate after hiding for more than six months.

But the senator managed to elude them and get “protective custody” from the upper chamber, which was granted by Cayetano, who was elected that day as Senate president.

‘Highly coordinated’

Two days later, on May 13, the Senate standoff culminated in a shooting incident involving personnel of the Office of the Sergeant-at-arms and NBI agents at the Government Service Insurance System complex in Pasay City, where the Senate is located.

Dela Rosa went back into hiding after leaving the Senate premises with Padilla aboard the latter’s vehicle in the early hours of May 14.

The police’s Criminal Investigation and Detection Group had concluded that Dela Rosa’s leaving with Padilla was not a “mere hitch ride” but “a highly coordinated, preplanned logistical maneuver specifically executed to avoid detection while escaping the Senate premises.”

Three acts

According to the Tindig Pilipinas complaint, Cayetano, Padilla, and Aplasca are liable to be charged with obstruction of justice under Presidential Decree No. 1829, as their actions “appear to have obstructed, impeded, or frustrated the enforcement of legal process and the performance of legal functions.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The move of Cayetano to put Dela Rosa under Senate custody, Padilla’s act of transporting Dela Rosa away from the Senate premises, and Aplasca’s move to “obstruct” NBI access that “created an environment that enabled [Dela Rosa] to leave the Senate premises and escape the law” makes them liable under Section 1(c) of PD 1829, according to the complainants. —WITH REPORTS FROM TINA G. SANTOS AND INQUIRER RESEARCH