CA upholds crime raps vs. engineer, foreman in Glorietta blast

The Department of Justice (DOJ) can continue pursuing its case against an engineer and a foreman implicated in the deadly Glorietta 2 blast in Makati City in October 2007.

This was after the Court of Appeals junked a petition filed by Engr. Ricardo Cruz, operations manager of Metaline Enterprises, and Miguel Velasco Jr., a foreman from Metaline.

Metaline was the contractor tapped by the Ayala Group to install the ventilation system at the shopping mall's basement.

The explosion killed 11 and injured more than a hundred people.

In its 16-page ruling, the CA Tenth Division said the DOJ did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it found probable cause to file charges against the two for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to properties.

"The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing information in court is essentially an executive function that is lodged at the first instance, with the public prosecutor and, ultimately, with the Secretary of Justice," ruled the appeals court.

"The prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice have wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigation and their findings with respect to the existence or non existence of probable cause are generally not subject to review by the Court," it added.

Cruz and Velasco were among 15 individuals slapped with criminal and administrative charges by the Philippine National Police Southern Police District then led by Chief Supt. Luizo Ticman in January 2008.

In January 2011, a DOJ special fact-finding panel concluded that methane gas, not a bomb, caused the blast at the diesel tank at the Glorietta 2 basement.

In its ruling, the CA did not agree with Cruz and Velasco's argument that they should already be cleared because another division of the CA, on November 17, 2008, had already cleared their co-accused, namely Clifford Arriola, Joselito Buenaventura, Charlie Nepomuceno, Jonathan Ibuna and Juan Ricaport for lack of due process against them.

The CA also stressed that the petitioners resorted to a wrong remedy when they went straight to the CA.

"What the petitioners should have done was to file a petition for review before the Secretary of Justice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration by the panel of prosecutors," it said. —KBK, GMA News