With both Gloria Arroyo and former poll Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. having been granted bail on the charge of electoral sabotage, there went government lawyers and Justice Chief Leila de Lima claiming that their cases against the two are “solid” and put all blame on the Pasay City regional trial court judge Jesus Mupas for granting them bail and questioned the reasons behind the bail.
Neither De Lima nor current Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes is anywhere near admitting that the cases they filed against Gloria and Abalos were done in a rush and were bereft of any hard evidence of electoral sabotage — and all this was rushed because Noynoy, along with his puppets, De Lima and Brillantes, wanted to stop Gloria from leaving the country after the Supreme Court issued a restraining order against De Lima’s hold departure order banning Gloria from leaving the country.
Noynoy wanted her jailed and never mind if there was no hard evidence to hold up in court and so, he and his Justice chief cooked up a weak case that was nevertheless supposed to be non-bailable.
As for Abalos, they had to jail him too, since the Palace wants to tie up his electoral sabotage charge with Gloria.
But strange how De Lima now scores the same judge for a “rushed” bail grant.
De Lima was quoted as saying that she finds the ruling “very surprising, if not shocking,” since it was issued just a day after the poll body had submitted its memorandum on Abalos’ petition for bail.
She pointed to  the “impossibility” of the judge being able to read and study the memorandum overnight and come up with a resolution also overnight.
Said she: “That’s not possible unless there already was a prepared resolution on that (bail grant).”
Now that is really strange talk coming from her, considering the verifiable fact that De Lima and Brillantes filed a complaint in the same court under the same judge, who, in less than four hours after the complaint was filed by Brillantes, quickly raffled and — as mentioned earlier — in less than four hours, the judge already charged Gloria and Abalos.
As De Lima pointed out, it was, to her, “impossible” for a judge to read and study the memorandum overnight and come up with a resolution — unless, as she put it, there was already a prepared resolution.
She probably answered her own question and even virtually admitted that indeed, the judge hearing the electoral sabotage case, having quickly decided on charging Gloria — all in a matter of four hours, despite the many pages in the complaint — must have had a prepared resolution on that.
After all, if what the judge did, with speed in deciding the charge against Gloria and Abalos, was right and not suspicious and unquestioned by De Lima, why does she find this bail grant resolution done “overnight” wrong and questionable?
But she wasn’t through yet. She questioned why Judge Mupas demanded for a corroborative witness from the government when the testimony of provincial election supervisor Yogie Martirizar had already been presented.
“Possible corroborative, significant witnesses may be presented during trial proper when the court hears merits of the case,” De Lima said.
“But for the purposes of bail application, we feel that the personal knowledge of Martirizar was already strong.
“Her testimony was very strong. She pointed to Abalos as a major player in the manipulation of results in North Cotabato. Why do you still need corroborative witness? I really don’t understand why Judge Mupas decided that way,” she added.
Is De Lima saying that only the prosecution can present a witness of highly questionable credibility but not be doubted by the judge since one witness’ testimony does not need any corroboration?
Thank the heavens that De Lima failed to make it to the Supreme Court. She would have screwed up the law some more.