Mediaman in Bolante’s libel case wants disbarment of prosecutor
ROXAS CITY – Abe Ballos, a blocktime mediaman charged by former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante for libel, filed an administrative complaint before Supreme Court for disbarment and/or disciplinary action against Provincial Prosecutor Rodolfo Beluso.
Ballos said Beluso committed grave and serious misconduct, in violation of Attorney’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility.
In his five-page complaint, Ballos said that sometime in Jan. 20, 2010, Bolante, then a candidate for governor in Capiz, filed a libel suit against him before the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Capiz.
He said that he submitted his counter-affidavit and thereafter, the investigating prosecutor, Assistant Prosecutor Freddie Ofialda, issued a resolution finding probable cause and filed the criminal information in court on March 11, 2010.
On March 16, 2010, the prosecution moved to withdraw the original information, which the court granted, and filed on March 27 a new criminal information for the same offense, which was signed by Ofialda, the investigating prosecutor and approved by Beluso.
Ballos said that on March 26, 2010, his counsel filed a manifestation with motion asking the dismissal of the case for failure of the investigating prosecutor Ofialda, to indicate in the information his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education compliance number.
This non-compliance and failure to indicate such compliance number is a ground for the dismissal of the case pursuant to Bar Matter No. 850, he said.
He added that on April 21, 2010, a rejoinder to prosecution’s opposition was filed by his counsel amplifying his argument in support of the motion to dismiss.
He also said that even before the trial court could resolve the pending motions, an amended information was filed on May 4, 2010 by the prosecution.
This time, by Beluso himself, signing and misrepresenting himself as the “assistant provincial prosecutor” in obvious attempt to preempt the court from dismissing the case and in effect contravening the provision of Bar Matter No. 850, among others.*
