MANILA, Philippines - Former police officer Cezar Mancao filed Tuesday a motion for leave to intervene before the Court of Appeals in an effort to reverse the appellate court's ruling junking two murder complaints against Sen. Panfilo Lacson for the Dacer-Corbito twin killing in November 2000.
In the ruling dated February 3, 2011, the appellate court said Mancao, in implicating Lacson, was an incredible and untrustworthy witness.
Mancao said the ruling was "unfair" because he was not even party to the case for certiorari (review) filed by Lacson and was thus not given an opportunity to explain why his affidavits dated June 2001 and March 2007 was "inconsistent" with his February 13, 2009 affidavit.
It was in the 2009 affidavit that Mancao implicated Lacson, or 8 years after the execution of his first affidavit.
"It's unfair po sa CA na hinusgahan ako na nagsisinungaling nang hindi naman naririnig ang aming panig," Mancao told reporters in a news conference today.
"Intervenor's rights as an accused and a witness, and his interest in the treatment of his extra-judicial testimonies, have been transgressed without due process in the present proceedings, and such rights and interest may not be defended, protected or restored if he is not allowed to intervene," Mancao's motion meantime read.
Mancao's counsel, Ferdinand Topacio, claimed it is not the appellate court which should rule on the credibility or lack thereof of Mancao but the trial courts.
"Ang sinasabi namin sa CA, kung hahatulan niyo kami isali nyo kami diyan at pakinggan ninyo ang aming panig. Sinaklaw nyo ang kapangyarihan ng trial court na maghatol sa isang kaso nang hindi man lang narinig si col mancao," Topacio said.
Apart from the motion to intervene, Mancao also filed a motion for reconsideration-in-intervention where he maintained that Lacson's petition "should have been dismissed outright" because it was not Lacson but Lacson's counsel, Alexander Poblador, who signed the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping attached to the petition.
Citing a Supreme Court ruling in Clavecilla v. Quitain and a Court of Appeals ruling in Mariveles Shipyard Corp. v. Court of Appeals, Mancao insisted it should have been petitioner Lacson himself who signed the certification.
Mancao also assailed why no justification was provided by Lacson for his failure to personally sign the certification against forum shopping.
Mancao's MR alleged Lacson actually engaged in forum shopping because, through counsel, he raised the same issues he elevated to the appellate court before the trial court.
He also assailed why Lacson was allowed relief by the appellate court when he refused to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the courts by refusing to honor a warrant for his arrest.
"A person who has not submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court has no right to invoke the processes of the courts," Mancao's MR read.