The National Police warded off on Tuesday criticism over its perceived apathetic move to arrest Ilocos Norte 2nd District Rep. Imelda Marcos, convicted on Friday in seven graft cases in connection with her “financial interests in Switzerland” when she served as a Cabinet official during her late husband’s term.
In an interview on CNN Philippines beamed nationwide, PNP spokesperson Sr. Supt. Benigno Durana, replying to a question on an alleged “double standard” in the case of Marcos and other people convicted by the courts, said police could not arrest Marcos as yet since the anti-graft court had yet to issue an arrest warrant.
At the same time, Marcos, through her lawyer former Court of Appeals Justice Manuel Lazaro, had filed a leave of court on Monday—such motion to be heard by the Sandiganbayan on Friday.
OmbudsmanAssistant Special Prosecutor Ryan Quilala also said Marcos, who is running for governor of her home province of Ilocos Norte in the May 2019 mid-term elections, would not be automatically jailed since she could still appeal her conviction before the Supreme Court.
The PNP on Monday said they were taking into consideration the health of Marcos in complying with the arrest order—still to be issued by the court.
The PNP made the remarks amid allegations that they were favoring the Marcos matriarch as compared to what they have done in the case of Senator Antonio Trillanes.
PNP chief Director General Oscar Albayalde noted that in Trillanes’ case, they enforced preemptive measures pending the issuance of the arrest warrant but clarified that not all police officers deployed at the Senate were tasked to guard the senator.
On Friday, the Sandiganbayan found Marcos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven counts of graft due to her “financial interests and participation in the management of private foundations in Switzerland” when she served as a Cabinet official during her late husband’s term.
The anti-graft court also sentenced the former first lady “to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from six years and one month as a minimum, up to 11 years as maximum for each count of the graft case filed against her.”
Durana said they could not arrest Marcos yet because the anti-graft court had yet to issue an arrest warrant.
“[Also] probably because of the fact that there may be a flight risk [in the case of Trillanes] and, at the same time, there may be some risk… as we execute the warrant of arrest,” he added.
Durana also claimed the Sandiganbayan itself did not seem enthusiastic in having Marcos placed behind bars, based on the statement by one of the prosecutors of the Office of the Ombudsman.
“In fact, even the Sandiganbayan doesn’t show enthusiasm. They made a statement. If I am [not] mistaken, Assistant Prosecutor [Ryan] Quilala said Ms. Imelda Marcos could avail (herself) of filing a motion for reconsideration and at the same time the offense is… bailable,” the PNP spokesman said.
A motion for reconsideration is a remedy provided under Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, to a losing party in a case and should be filed within 15 days from its notice. With Maricel Cruz
