Remulla doesn't believe Teves wanted to return to PH
Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla on Friday said he does not believe that former Negros Oriental representative Arnolfo 'Arnie' Teves Jr. wanted to resolve the charges against him in the Philippines while he was in Timor-Leste.
Teves, the alleged mastermind in the killing of Negros Oriental governor Roel Degamo, is back in the Philippines after being deported by authorities in Timor-Leste.
'Hindi, ayaw niya lang talaga umuwi,' Remulla said in an ambush interview.
(No, he just didn't want to return.)
'In fact, if you analyze everything that happened, nung nangyari 'yan he was abroad. But if he really was innocent, he would have come home. Pwede naman siya umuwi eh, pero hindi siya umuwi, di ba?' he added.
(In fact, if you analyze everything that happened, when that happened he was abroad. But if he really was innocent, he would have come home. He could have returned, but he didn't, right?)
While being read his Miranda rights during his flight, Teves said that he had no problem with returning to the Philippines as long as it was done right.
In an earlier briefing, he also said that while he was in Timor-Leste, he thought that the cases against him must be resolved.
'At least ma-ano na din, matapos na rin. Kahit nung nandoon ako [sa Timor-Leste], iniisip ko kung hindi man ako umuwi. Haharapin— kailangan din ito matapos eh,' Teves said earlier.
(At least it will finally be over. Even when I was in Timor-Leste, I was already thinking that even if I didn't return, this still had to be faced and resolved.)
Teves was supposedly seeking treatment in the United States during the shooting Degamo and others on March 4, 2023 in Pamplona, Negros Oriental.
Instead of returning to the country, Remulla said Teves visited ASEAN countries before settling in Timor-Leste.
'So what gives? Di ba flight is an indication of guilt,' Remulla said.
When sought for comment, Topacio declined to comment, saying that Teves never said he wanted to return to the country.
In an earlier briefing, Teves reiterated that he was concerned for his life when asked why he stayed in Timor-Leste if he knew that he needed to face the charges against him.
The former lawmaker is facing multiple murder charges over the killing of Degamo and nine others on March 4, 2023 at the Degamo residence in Pamplona, Negros Oriental.
Teves and others have also been charged with the alleged killings of three individuals in Negros Oriental in 2019.
He and 12 others have also been designated as terrorists by the Anti-Terrorism Council, citing several alleged killings and harassment in Negros Oriental.
He was expelled by the House of Representatives in August last year for disorderly conduct and continued absence. —AOL, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
2 hours ago
- GMA Network
SOJ Remulla: We haven't given up on case of missing sabungeros
Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla on Monday assured families of the missing sabungeros that the government continues to investigate their case. 'Hindi kami nag gi-give up. We have not given up on anything or anybody. Ganon lang talaga, mabagal minsan ang kaso. Ito po ay proseso, kinakailangan po na may ebidensya na makakalap at ginagawa ho namin ang lahat,' Remulla said in an ambush interview. (We are not giving up. We have not given up on anything or anybody. It's just that sometimes cases move slowly. This is a process, and evidence needs to be gathered, and we are doing everything we can.) Remulla issued the remark when asked about the sentiment of the families that they feel as if the government has abandoned them due to the lack of progress in the cases. Meanwhile, the DOJ chief said authorities are currently processing the information provided by 'Alyas Totoy.' Totoy claimed that the missing sabungeros were thrown into Taal Lake. He also claimed that the abduction and killings were linked to the owner of the cockpit and online sabong operations. Remulla said he has talked with Totoy regarding his possible enrollment into the Witness Protection Program. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
15 hours ago
- GMA Network
VP Sara Duterte to reply to Ombudsman ‘within required period'
Vice President Sara Duterte said that the Office of the Vice President (OVP) will be submitting its response to the Ombudsman "within the required period," as her impeachment trial looms. The Ombudsman had directed Duterte to respond to the charges filed by the House of Representatives in connection with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. She was given 10 days to respond to the order, which was issued on June 19. In an interview during a support rally in Melbourne, Australia on Sunday, Duterte said that her team of lawyers informed her that an answer was being prepared for the Ombudsman. "As we speak, the lawyers are already preparing for the answer and the lawyers informed me that we will provide the answer within the period required within 10 days," she said. Duterte is also facing another deadline—she has until Monday, June 23, to respond to a summons from the Senate sitting as the impeachment court in her trial. The summons, served on June 11, also gave Duterte a "non-extendible" period of 10 days to respond to the articles of impeachment against her. Since the 10th day from the issuance, June 21, fell on a Saturday, Duterte will have until Monday to respond. Former associate justice Antonio Carpio has said that Duterte will lose her right to answer should she fail to submit her reply to the summons within the period. He stated that her lack of response will not stop the proceedings. During the interview, Duterte also said she has been preparing to respond to an impeachment since November 2023. 'The moment that we heard Representative [France] Castro from the House of Representatives mentioned the word impeachment. So we've been preparing for this and we've hired lawyers since 2023, so they will answer… We will provide the answer within 10 days,' she said. The Vice President also said that her visit to Australia was not a holiday, following remarks from Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro questioning whether her trip was personal or official. 'I do not like traveling at all except for holidays, and clearly I am not on holiday for this trip. I am here to discuss with the Filipino community on ways forward for our country, and of course how we can push the administration to do more for our country,' Duterte said. 'The Philippine government should not discount the contributions of the Filipino communities worldwide… It's good to sit down and discuss with them,' she added. — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
2 days ago
- GMA Network
Ombudsman on House panel saying it did not file complaint vs. VP Sara: Then why give us committee report copy?
Ombudsman Samuel Martires on Saturday questioned the House why its committee gave them a copy of its report on its investigation into the allegations against Vice President Sara Duterte. This was after House spokesperson Princess Abante on Friday said the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability did not file a criminal and administrative complaint against Duterte before the Office of the Ombudsman. "Eh bakit ba nila kami fu-furnish-an ng kopya ng result ng kanilang investigation? Ano 'yun, gagawin naming ano, pardon the word, pero ano 'yun, gagawin naming scratch paper? Ano 'yon? We're not even a part of that investigation of the House of Representatives kaya hindi kami dapat furnish-an ng kopya," Martires said in an interview on Dobol B TV. (Then why did they furnish us a copy of the result of their investigation? What is that? Do they expect us to, pardon the word, use it as scratch paper? What's that? We're not even a part of that investigation of the House of Representatives so we should not have been furnished a copy [of the report].) Abante made the clarification in light of the Office of the Ombudsman's June 19 order asking Duterte to answer complaints of technical malversation, falsification, falsification of public documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, plunder, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. The Ombudsman order identified the House good government and public accountability panel as the complainant. 'Unang una, hindi ang House ang nag-file ng (First of all, the House did not file the) complaint. What the House initiated was the impeachment trial through the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment,' Abante said in a press conference. Abante said that the House only furnished Martires a copy of the recommendations of the panel resulting from its inquiry on the budget use of Duterte, including the disbursement of confidential funds. Confused? Martires meanwhile on Saturday said Abante may just have been confused. "Siguro naguguluhan lang sila o naguguluhan lang 'yung spokesperson. Ang nag-endorse sa amin ng committee report ng House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability ay ang Secretary General mismo. At sinasabi ng Secretary General, sa kanyang sulat, na itong committee report ni Representative Joel Chua was adopted by the House of Representatives," he said. (Maybe they are just confused or the spokesperson is confused. The one who endorsed to us the committee report of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability is the Secretary General himself. And the Secretary General said in his letter that the committee report of Representative Joel Chua was adopted by the House of Representatives.) READ: House adopts panel report urging plunder, other raps vs. Sara Duterte "So ang naging complainant dito na ginawa namin is the House of Representatives Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, represented by its chairperson, Representative Joel Chua. 'Yun. So sino ang gagawin naming complainant?" Martires said. (So we made the complainant the House of Representatives Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, represented by its chairperson, Representative Joel Chua. That's it. So who should we make as complainant?) Martires cited the Pharmally case in connection with the government's purchase of P4 billion worth of RT-PCR test kits. "If we remember the Pharmally case, it was not even a committee report kasi hindi lahat ng mga senador ay nag-concur kay (because not all senators concurred with) Senador Richard Gordon at sa (and with the) committee report. It is just considered as a mere result of an investigation of the Blue Ribbon Committee," he said. "Ang naging complainant du'n ay sina [former] Senador Gordon at Senador Risa Hontiveros (The complainants there became Senator Gordon and Senator Risa Hontiveros), representing the Blue Ribbon Committee," Martires said. He said he did not even hear a whisper thereafter from Gordon asking why he was made the complainant. "Si Senadora Imee, nag-file din ng kaso 'di ba, lately lang. Sino ang complainant du'n? (Senator Imee also filed a case recently. Who was the complainant?) 'Yung Senate Committee on Foreign Relations represented by Imee Marcos," the Ombudsman said. "Eh dito, sino ang magiging complainant? Alangan namang kami ang complainant? Hindi kami ang nag-imbestiga ng kaso," Martires said. (In this case, who will be the complainant? It can't be us. We did not investigate the case.) "Nanggaling sa kanila at detalyado ang (It came from them and it detailed the) offenses that were allegedly committed by the Vice President and some of the employees and officers of DepEd [Department of Education] and the Office of the Vice President," he added. Martires said the House panel's committee report "was treated as a complaint." He explained further: "Wala naman kaming pinagkaiba sa piskalya sa public prosecutor's office ng Department of Justice. Kapag nag-file ka ng reklamo sa prosecutor's office, ikaw ang nagrereklamo at hindi 'yung piskal." (It is not any different from a fiscal at the public prosecutor's office of the Department of Justice. When you file a complaint at the prosecutor's office, you are the one complaining, not the fiscal.) "Pero kung finile ng piskal 'yung iyong reklamo, nakita niya may katuturan, may katotohanan, finile sa husgado, ang nagrereklamo du'n ay hindi na 'yung complainant kundi ang People of the Philippines," Martires added. (But if the fiscal filed the case because he saw it was relevant and truthful, and he filed it in court, the complainant will not be the person but the People of the Philippines.) GMA News Online contacted Abante to get her comment but has yet to receive a reply as of posting time. Probe to continue The Ombudsman will continue the investigation into the allegations against Duterte, he said. "Itutuloy namin ang imbestigasyon [kay Vice Pres. Duterte]. Para ano at binigyan kami ng kopya ng report ng investigation. Para ano? Para basahin lang namin?" Martires said. (We will continue the probe. For what purpose were we given a copy of the report of the investigation? For what? For us just to read?) "Diretso ang aming imbestigasyon," he added. (We will continue with our investigation.) "Bibigyan namin ang Kamara ng (We will give the House) sufficient time to file also their pledge from the time that they received a copy of the counter affidavit of the Vice President and the other respondents," Martires said. If the House committee does not want to cooperate with the Office of the Ombudsman, then they may have to use their power to cite them in contempt, he said. "Kung ayaw nilang makipag-cooperate sa amin, we might be forced, mapipilitan kami na gamitin ang aming power to cite them in contempt," Martires said. (If they do not want to cooperate with us, we might be forced to use our power to cite them in contempt.) "Hindi kami nagbibiro. Trabaho ito na ibinigay sa amin ng taumbayan. Trabaho ito na ibinigay sa amin ng Konstitusyon... Ano, bibigyan kami ng sulat, nirereklamo mo isang barangay captain, ano, babasahin lang namin?" he added. (We are not joking. This is a job given to us by the public. It is our duty given by the Constitution. If we will be given a letter of complaint against a barangay captain, will we just read it [and not do anything]?) Asked who will be cited in contempt in this matter, Martires said: "Aba'y 'di kung sino ang ayaw mag-... (Whoever does not want...) Kasi this is a committee represented by Representative Joel Chua. So we'll ask Representative Joel Chua once the Vice President or any of the respondents there will file their counter affidavit. We will ask the committee kung gusto nilang mag-file (if they want to file a) ng reply. Kung hindi (If not), it will be submitted now for resolution by the Office of the Ombudsman." If the committee does not want to file a reply, the Ombudsman will then consider them having waived their right to reply. "Ngayon 'pag sinabi nilang, 'Ay hindi naman kami nag-file sa inyo,' if they insist on doing that, ay siguro naman... I am not threatening them, eh siguro hindi na ito magandang relasyon between the House of Representatives at Office of the Ombudsman na ayaw nating mangyari," Martires said. (Now if they say, 'But we did not file [the complaint with you], if they insist on doing that, then maybe... I am not threatening them, maybe this signifies a not so good relationship between the House of Representatives and the Office of the Ombudsman that we do not want to see.) "I think they should cooperate with us because they are the ones na kumbaga sa ano, kinalabit kami, kiniliti kami (we were the ones contacted)," he added. Ample time Martires said once Duterte and the other respondents give their counter affidavit, the House of Representatives will be furnished a copy. "Sila mismo, si Vice President mismo ang magfu-furnish ng copy sa kanila," he said. (The Office of the Vice President will furnish them a copy.) But what if Duterte says why should I give my counter affidavit to the Ombudsman when there is no complainant? Martires replied: "E tingnan natin kung ano ang kahihinatnan (then let's see what would happen)." "Hindi namin puwedeng isantabi, we cannot close our eyes, hindi namin puwedeng ipikit ang aming mga mata na merong isang reklamo na ibinigay sa amin, 'di ba," he said. (We cannot ignore it, we cannot close our eyes to a complaint given to us, right?) "Hindi pa kami umaabot du'n sa puntos ng pagde-determine ng probable cause. Nakita lang namin du'n sa report na may sufficient na ebidensiya. So gusto naming sagutin ng mga respondent. We advised Vice President Sara 'yung nakasaad sa report na 'yun," Martires said. (We have not yet reached the point where we will determine if there is probable cause. We just saw in the report that there is sufficient evidence. So we want the respondents to give their response. We advised Vice President Sara that this is what is in the report.) "Du'n kami magde-determine, based on counter affidavit at du'n sa report. Pag-aaralan namin. If there is a probable cause, then we will make that determination later on," he added. (That's where we will determine [if there is probable cause], based on the counter affidavit and the report. We will study them.) Martires said they have not received word yet from the Office of the Vice President on whether the respondents will submit a counter affidavit. "Wala naman (No, we haven't received any word). Although natanggap na ng (But it was received by the) Office of the Vice President. Siguro naman (Maybe) they will submit the counter affidavit within that period of 10 days," he said. The OVP said it received the Ombudsman's order at about 9 a.m. Friday, June 20. —with a report from Jamil Santos/KG, GMA Integrated News
