SC asked to review decision in 2012 slay of Dutch activist
CITY OF SAN FERNANDO—The girlfriend of a slain Dutch activist has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision acquitting a man tagged in the 2012 murder in Pampanga.
Aurora Santiago, partner of Wilhelm Geertman, filed a motion for reconsideration on Wednesday against the May 7 decision of the high court’s Third Division, which ruled that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove the guilt of Marvin Nuguid “beyond reasonable doubt.”
The ruling—made public only in August—reversed a regional trial court (RTC) decision dated July 1, 2019, and a Court of Appeals (CA) ruling on Jan. 20, 2021.
Nuguid has since been ordered released from New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City. Geertman, who headed the nongovernmental organization Alay Bayan Inc., was gunned down in 2012 as he returned to his office at the boundary of the cities of San Fernando and Angeles after withdrawing money from a bank.
‘Exceeded authority’
Santiago’s motion, filed through the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), urged the high court to address “issues of grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process.”
According to the motion, the Third Division “erroneously resolved questions of fact when it resolved the petitioner’s Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.”
It further argued that the Supreme Court “failed to sufficiently assess the evidence of the parties, and totally ignored the assessment of the [regional] trial court, which conducted the trial and observed the demeanor of the witnesses, and that of the Court of Appeals, which conducted a complete review of both the factual and legal findings of the trial court.”
Santiago maintained that by “disturbing concurrent factual findings of the RTC and CA—without requiring elevation of the full records as is done in certain cases—the Court exceeded its limited authority under Rule 45.”
This, she said, “compounded the denial of due process to the private complainant.”
The assailed decision, penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, acknowledged that “a heinous crime was committed against Geertman, which caused his untimely demise,” but said the high court “heavily question[ed] if Nuguid was the one who inflicted it,” citing “inconsistent statements” by witnesses.
Santiago countered that the factual findings of the lower courts were well supported by evidence.
Her motion stressed that the “twin defects of jurisdictional overreach and denial of due process constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The assailed decision therefore cannot be considered a valid judgment of acquittal. It is a void judgment, and a void judgment cannot trigger the constitutional protection of double jeopardy.”
