Bellas: It was not necessary to summon Manibusan, Lynch • Chief prosecutor seeks sanction against lawyer

Superior Court Associate Judge Timothy Bellas yesterday quashed a lawyer’s subpoena for Presiding Judge Edward Manibusan and Chief Prosecutor Kevin Lynch, saying it was unnecessary to summon the two officials to testify on a businessman’s complaint about an allegedly defective search warrant.

Court observers described as “courageous” the move made by Joseph Arriola to subpoena the trial court’s highest ranking judge, but the young lawyer maintained his action had no malice.

“I have no ill-intention in any way to offend the presiding judge whom I have a great deal of respect for,” Arriola told reporters after the two-hour court hearing.

Lynch responded to the summon, while Manibusan was represented by lawyer Brien San Nicolas.

“I thought long and hard about [summoning the presiding judge]. I have a responsibility to advocate ‘zealously’ for my client to make sure that I explore all the possible venues. If it was a bad decision, then I would have to live with it. I don’t know how else I could have done it,” Arriola said.

Arriola is representing Cheung Ping Yin, who is seeking the recovery of money and other properties confiscated from him by government agents during a raid conducted in the morning of July 3 by operatives of the Department of Public Safety and the Attorney General’s Office.

The authorities suspected that Cheung was using his establishment, the former Abracadabra Dive Shop, as a front for illegal gambling activities. There was, however, no criminal charges filed against Cheung.

Arriola alleged the search warrant issued by Manibusan was defective. He also questioned the government agents’ failure to issue Cheung a receipt and to file an inventory for the properties seized.

Bellas allowed Arriola to question police officer Paul T. Ogomuro, who was also issued a subpoena.

Arguing for Manibusan, San Nicolas said a trial court judge has absolute immunity from being subpoenaed.

Bellas agreed it was not necessary to ask a judge to testify on the validity of a search warrant since judges sign warrants “based on what’s in front of them.”

“The reason I asked the judge and the chief prosecutor to appear in the court is to ask them where Mr. Cheung’s money and properties are. I only want to know if there’s any inventory filed with the court,” Arriola told the court.

He said his out-of-court requests to be provided with the inventory fell on deaf ears.

Lynch, who filed the motion to quash the subpoena, said Arriola could have exhausted out-of-court efforts to get the inventory and other information that he needed.

“There’s no valid reason to subpoena me; there’s no reason to subpoena the attorney for a party into a case when you know that attorney will also appear in the court room [for the same case],” Lynch said.

“This problem could have been avoided if he worked closely with the attorneys through written requests and phone calls. I would have been happy to give him the information that he needed,” Lynch said.

Lynch is also asking the court to sanction Arriola for “extremely improper conduct.”

He described Arriola’s issuance of subpoena as a “harassment tactic.”

Lynch declined to comment when asked if the AGO would eventually filed charges against Cheung.

Bellas admitted the proceedings were a bit difficult to handle because motions were filed despite the absence of a criminal case from which a court decision should take off.

He, however, agreed with Arriola that the court was the proper venue to demand the return of confiscated properties.

Bellas said he will issue a written decision on the motions for return of properties and motion for sanction next week. (MCM)