Court of Appeals reverses Dumlao’s acquittal in Jee Ick Joo case
The family, friends, and employees of murdered Korean businessman Jee Ick Joo as well as the members of the Korean community in the Philippines attend a memorial service in his honor at the Philippine National Police Camp Crame headquarters on Feb. 6, 2017. (PHOTO BY JODEE AGONCILLO / INQUIRER)
MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has reversed the acquittal of Superintendent Rafael Dumlao for the death of South Korean businessman Jee Ick Joo.
In a decision by the Court of Appeals’ 13th Division, it granted the appeal filed by the government to nullify the ruling of the Angeles City Regional Trial Court Branch 60.
Dumlao, formerly from the defunct Philippine National Police-Anti-Illegal Drugs Group (AIDG) masterminded the kidnapping and killing of Jee, together with Police Chief Master Sergeant Ricky Sta. Isabel, Police Executive Master Sergeant Roy Villegas, and Jerry Omlang.
WHAT WENT BEFORE: Jee Ick-joo slaying
Jee was abducted from his house in Pampanga, together with his house help Marisa Dawis Morquicho in 2016. Morquicho was released a day after her abduction, while Jee was taken inside Camp Crame, where he was strangled to death.
Article continues after this advertisementVillegas became a state witness, while Sta. Isabel and Omlang were convicted by the Pampanga Court. However, Dumlao was acquitted.
Article continues after this advertisementREAD: Why court acquitted the ‘brains’ behind Korean businessman’s slay
The government questioned the decision before the Court of Appeals.
In granting the appeal, the CA said the RTC “gravely abused its discretion by gross misapprehension of facts when it rendered its joint decision.”
Describing the RTC proceedings as a “sham” and an “apparent mockery of the judicial process,” the CA said Dumlao’s acquittal “was a foregone conclusion and in total disregard of the evidence.”
“The RTC reached a conclusion that clearly contradicted the testimonies of witnesses, rendering the prosecution’s presentation of evidence inutile and blatantly abusing its discretion to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice,” the CA said.
As a general rule, a judgment of acquittal is usually final and cannot be appealed by the prosecution to avoid double jeopardy.
However, as an exception, an acquittal may be challenged without violating the Constitution in cases of grave abuse of discretion.
“In the present case, the dismissal or judgment of acquittal is void and thus does not result in double jeopardy,” the CA said.
Dumlao was meted with a penalty of up to 40 years imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) without the eligibility of parole plus P350,000 for the special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide for Jee’s death.
He was also meted with a penalty of reclusion perpetual plus P225,000 in damages for kidnapping and serious illegal detention of Morquicho and another 35 years imprisonment for carnapping.
