Perplexing Development in Gary Lee Rohn Case
I’ll chalk this up to a lesson in learning about the Philippine judiciously system. Earlier this month, Gary Lee Rohn was arrested and jailed for having unrelated minors in his home. RA 7610 .prohibits unrelated parties from being in the presence of children
This law and arrest has been the subject of talk on many expat related sites for those of us 
living in the Philippines. Injurer.net is reporting that the prosecutor has dropped charges because the arrest and search was improper and thus the evidence cannot be used in court. Basically because the police themselves had no personal knowledge of the situation.
The prosecutors office seems to be implying that because the person that made a report to the police was not present at the raid was a key consideration. That person did have personal knowledge.
The Inquirer reported that the information was not present when the police visited Rohn’s house:
Cebu Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jose Edwin Renegado said the police admitted they received the information from their civilian asset who was absent from the raid…
…He said any evidence obtained during the arrest and raid was inadmissible in court.
Does that imply that the police can only act when they have personal knowledge unless the informant is present when the police confront the accused? It seems to be leaning that way but doesn’t come right out and say that. I am uncertain. Could the police have taken the informant to a judge and got a warrant to search Rohn’s house?
It seems that their lack of knowledge meant they entered the house without proper grounds and thus they are now unable to use the evidence:
The Cebu Provincial Prosecutor’s Office yesterday dismissed the child abuse charges filed against American Gary Lee Rohn on the ground that the raid done by Madridejos police on his home and his warrantless arrest were not backed by evidence.
I can’t help but wonder if the prosecutor doesn’t want to test this law. If they did test this law and the law deemed unconstitutional, then the police would loose this tool. This is pure speculation on my part. I don’t have a good understanding of Filipino law and this situation only makes me even more aware of that.
Rohn has other charges pending but those are in the preliminary stages. Accusations have been made by one of the children but she made those claims because she was afraid her parents would be charged with crimes if she didn’t. I think that would call her testimony into question.
Tagged with: Expats • Living In The Phlippines • RA 7610
Filed under: Living in Cebu
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Get
To The Philippines Faster
Found this article that should be read for those wishing to follow this.. The details in this story seem to add credibility to the accusations. HERE
So it appears the police had no warrant or improperly executed the warrant they did have. There are some specific rules regarding search warrants in the Philippines. From my understanding only designated officers may conduct the search and they are the only police who may enter the house. They are supposed to have Barangy officials witness the search and the occupant also has the right to witness the search. There are a number of other rules I don’t remember them all.
I thought they had a search warrant from memory but i looked back over the original source articles and didn’t find a mention of that.
Children being in danger they probably didn’t need a search warrant but the issue here is that the police didn’t have personal knowledge.
I’ve also been saying for quite a while that I think they are using this law as a means to act and then gather more evidence and to get the children out of danger. Then go forward on more specific abuse charges.
And some are going to say it was a shake down and Rohn paid someone extortion to have the charges dropped. I don’t believe that is likely at all. This is too public and an issue dear to the governor’s heart.
From what I read someone accused him so when the police went to the house they were supposed to bring the accuser with them to give them grounds to enter. They didn’t do that so without legal grounds to enter the search was illegal.
I am not positive if that is correct but that is my understanding from what I read. This being a test case of the law they probably want to be sure they have their ducks in a row before they proceede.
I don’t think they want to prosecute under this law at least I hope not…
I don’t see how they couldn’t have personal knowledge. This guys been doing this for several years. People have been talking about it.
What i read implied what you are saying, the prosecutor mentioned they didn’t take the accuser with them. Why would he say that if it had no significance. I just don’t like to read anything into what someone says. I’ve been mislead by that too many times.
Could probably find the answer by searching for rules of evidence but its not that important.