Detained activist Reina Mae Nasino, who lost her baby River while under detention, was released Thursday on orders of the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 47 after she and a fellow activist posted bail.
Nasino and her fellow activists Alma Moran and Ram Carlo Bautista gained their release orders after they posted bail, over three years since they were arrested in Tondo, Manila in November 2019 for alleged illegal possession of firearms and a grenade.
While under detention, Nasino gave birth to River and was separated from her newborn baby at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Her lawyers had tried to keep them together, but Baby River, only 5.5 pounds at birth, passed away before she could be reunited with Nasino.
The Manila RTC found that the two witnesses the prosecution presented — a barangay chairperson and a policeman tasked to photograph the operation — “failed to identify the accused and which firearm was recovered from each of them.”
“The general testimony of witnesses [village chairperson Jocelyn] Corpuz and [PCpl. Christopher] Jacinto will not suffice to establish that indeed the evidence against the accused were strong,” the court said.
But the court made clear it wasn’t going to delve into the validity of the search warrants, which is pending before the Court of Appeals.
The appellate court, in September, voided the search warrants used in the operation against the activists due to conflicting addresses, but the case is still pending because the Office of the Solicitor General asked the CA 12th Division to reconsider its ruling.
Progressive and human rights groups have alleged that Nasino’s arrest was part of a government crackdown against persons perceived to be leftist or left-leaning.
In September, the Court of Appeals nullified the search warrants issued by a Quezon City Regional Trial Court judge that led to the arrest and filing of illegal possession of firearms, ammunition, and explosives against Nasino and two others.
The appellate court made the move even as it reminded trial courts of its duty to protect the people’s right against illegal searches and seizure.
In a 26-page decision penned by Associate Justice Emily San Gaspar-Gito, the CA’s Twelfth Division also held that all the evidence seized during the implementation of the search warrants cannot be used to prosecute Casino and her companions.
“Search warrants No. 5944 (19) and 5945 (19) are declared void for failure to meet the standards of a valid search warrant, and all evidence procured by virtue thereof are deemed inadmissible,” the CA ruled.
While in detention and at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Nasino gave birth to a baby girl on July 1, 2020, who was turned over to her mother for care after a month.
The three petitioners denied the charges against them and claimed that they were arrested without a warrant. They said the firearms, ammunition, and explosives did not belong to them and were just planted by the raiding team.
Because of this, the petitioners filed the petition before the CA seeking the reversal of the orders issued by Manila RTC Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali on July 1, 2020, which denied Bautista’s motion to suppress illegally seized evidence and to quash warrant, and petitioner Moran and Nasino’s joint omnibus motion to quash search warrants and suppress evidence.
They also assailed the trial court’s order issued on July 22, 2020 denying their petition for joint omnibus motion for reconsideration of the July 1 order, for ocular inspection of the searched premises, and for issuance of subpoena of records of the application for search warrants.
The petitioners said Judge Umali committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders.
In its ruling, the appellate court agreed with the petitioners, declaring that “such grave abuse of discretion is present in the assailed act,” noting that there were irregularities in the application and implementation of the search warrants.
The CA cited the documents forming part of the record of the application for the search warrants revealed three different addresses in Sampaloc and Tondo in Manila.
“These apparent irregularities in the application and implementation of the subject search warrants are more than enough to debunk the presumption of regularity of performance of official duties,” the appellate court said.
