CEBU, Philippines – Groups condemned the Tacloban City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 45’s denial of activists Frenchie Mae Cumpio and Marielle Domequil’s appeals on their terror financing conviction and bail plea.
Julianna Agpalo, Cumpio and Domequil’s legal counsel, told Rappler on Friday evening, March 27, that they disagreed with the ruling and found it to be unjust.
“We likewise express our grave concern over the continued prosecution of cases founded on provisions that are patently unconstitutional, thereby rendering any continued detention unjust and inequitable,” she said.
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) said in a statement on Friday that they were “extremely disappointed” with the court’s decision.
According to the NUJP, the judge’s “blind faith” in the testimonies of self-declared rebel surrenderers sets a dangerous precedent for journalists, humanitarian workers, and activists in the country.
“Even without documentary evidence, the court can punish those wrongfully accused by individuals acting in cahoots with state security forces,” the NUJP stressed.
The Altermidya Network condemned the ruling, calling out the court’s verdict for “resting heavily on incredible and preposterous testimonies of dubious witnesses.”
On Saturday, March 28, KAPATID, a support group for friends and family members of political prisoners, also condemned the court’s ruling.
“Hindi sila terorista. Sila ay kabataang tagapaglingkod at mamamahayag na pinarusahan sa gawa-gawang kaso (They are not terrorists. They are young people who serve and journalists who were penalized with trumped-up charges),” KAPATID’s statement read.
On January 22, Cumpio and Domequil were convicted of terrorism financing based on the testimonies of alleged rebel returnees, effectively penalizing them with 12 to 18 years imprisonment.
Five days later, the two activists, through their counsel, filed a joint motion to be allowed post-conviction bail. This was denied by the court on February 13.
The accused had filed a motion for reconsideration on February 6 to appeal the conviction. They also filed a joint motion for reconsideration to appeal the denial of their bail plea later that month, on February 23.
“The arguments raised by the movants-accused merely reiterated some matters that were previously considered and resolved,” Judge Georgina Uy Perez of the Tacloban City RTC Branch 45 said in an omnibus order on Wednesday, March 25.
In their appeal of the terror conviction, the accused argued that the judgment was “tainted by reversible errors of law and serious misappreciation of facts.”
They provided four reasons why this was the case:
In a Facebook post on Friday, Ephraim Cortez, president of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, explained that the alleged act of terrorism financing was committed before the CPP-NPA was designated a terrorist organization by a foreign jurisdiction.
“Moreover, the Supreme Court declared designation by a foreign jurisdiction unconstitutional in Calleja vs. Executive Secretary. While the acts attributed to Frenchie and Marielle were allegedly committed before the promulgation of Calleja vs. Executive Secretary, the complaint against them was filed after the Supreme Court rendered its aforecited decision,” Cortez added.
In the joint appeal for the bail plea, the accused stated that bail should not be denied solely based on the nature or the gravity of the offense, or on speculative considerations.
“The prosecution merely invoked national security, symbolism, and third-party conduct, while the accused-movants presented documentary evidence showing the nonexistence of the bail-negating circumstances,” the omnibus order said, citing the joint motion.
The accused argued that they fully cooperated with the proceedings and did not evade the court’s jurisdiction, making them unlikely to abscond if granted bail.
The judge clarified that it did not rely only on the designations of the CPP-NPA from foreign jurisdictions. Uy referred to Proclamation No. 374, issued on December 5, 2017, that declared the CPP-NPA as a designated organization.
“The movants’ insistence that no valid designation existed at the time of the commission of the offense is therefore contradicted by statute and the undisputed factual record,” Uy said in the order.
The court also maintained that the prosecution’s witnesses, the former rebels, were able to establish the voluntary nature of the accused’s act in financing terrorism, and that the witness testimonies were credible and corroborated one another.
The judge also reiterated her previous take on the discounting of the defense’s evidence, stating that mere presentation of documentary or digital evidence would not automatically overcome positive identification.
“The court reiterates that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not require absolute certainty, only moral certainty — that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind,” Uy ruled.
As of this writing, the court stated that the transfer order for Cumpio and Domequil from the Tacloban City Jail to the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City will remain in effect.
“We intend to avail of all appropriate remedies under the law to seek its reversal,” Agpalo said. – Rappler.com
