By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
The narration of the charges against the respondents, in this case, is a summation of what this series had presented in detail and explained.
The complaint recounted two offenses committed in the act of perjury. Aside from the falsehood it also involved a conspiracy the elements of which are covered by Article 17.
Who are included in the act of conspiracy? According to the law, these are persons who “take a direct part in the execution of the act, those who directly force or induce others to commit it, and those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.”
The charge filed before the Bacolod City Prosecutor’s Office claim that “all the elements of perjury are present.
Firstly, Complainants Entroduction, Moreno, Guinanao and Tolentino signed affidavits surrounding the events of August 7, 2019, which was the subject of criminal charges for Anti-Carnapping Act, Violation of Public Service Act, Grave Coercion and other crimes against the Y4 and several other respondents last August 30, 2019 before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Bacolod City.
“Secondly, these affidavits were subscribed before a City Prosecutor of Bacolod City. In the case of Complainants Entroduction, Moreno and Tolentino, their affidavits were subscribed before ACP May Christina Cuevas last July 15, 2020); thirdly, Complainants were forced by respondents to knowingly lie and declare falsehood in their respective affidavits. More appropriately, respondents inserted untruthful statements in the affidavits they have prepared for Complainants and forced them to sign these perjured affidavits;
“And, lastly, the perjured affidavits of Complainants will be used by respondents in their criminal charges against the Y4.
No less than respondent Atty. Katalbas expressed this point before Complainants Hubac and Mondeja. And, if you consider the timing of the release of the DOJ resolution dismissing the charge of Carnapping by Banibane and the approximate time when Complainants and their fellow drivers and conductors were directed to the Head Office, then you have your motives.”
That is one double-bladed aspect of this complaint. The other complaint charges that the respondents are also guilty “for the crime of grave coercion defined and penalized under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code.” This involves, in brief, compelling somebody to do something that is legal or forcing somebody to do what is illegal, whether the actions are right or wrong. In clear language, you force somebody to do or not do something against his will. The compulsion is usually accompanied by violence or threat and inducement by bribery.
Of course, a person can be compelled to do or not do something if the act or omission was mandated by law. On the other hand, a person has the right to refuse to obey or oppose a law that is clearly illegal or immoral.
In the present case, the drivers were forced by threats to do something that is illegal and worse perpetrated by people who have taken an oath to abide by the rule of law.
The incidents, in this case, would not have happened had Leo Rey been satisfied by his takeover of the company albeit, forcibly and without order of the court but as history tells us those who occupy a position without legal or moral right tended to protect their position by resorting to illegal action believing wrongly that might means right.
Thus, Leo Rey took over the family-owned company without the mandate of law and he knows that his control is precarious and would eventually be taken from him in accordance with the law. He needed to strengthen his position and one way is to put his brothers and sisters in difficulties with the hope that they would buy peace by recognizing him.
There are dozens of examples of this flawed theory like Adolf Hitler and Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto who believed that by striking first with a massive blow, America would sue to peace. They got busted.
Like them, Leo Rey made a mistake blinding himself to the fact that people can be loyal not so much to the Y4, but to the truth and self-respect. His victims decided to fight back. Indeed, this case need not have happened and placed his lawyers in peril, but they foolhardily gave a reason for it.
