eng - World Organisation Against Torture

First Appearance in Court/Access to a lawyer: 06.03. 2001(after 19 days in Masinloc jail). No Attorney present. Theywere then ordered to be transferred to a YouthRehabilitation Centre pending arraignment and trial.Arraignment: 13.03. 2001. Represented by PAO Attorney.Bail was set at PhP 100,000 each (equivalent to US $2,000).Total Period of Detention in Adult Jail: 19 days.NOTE: Dan knew that his trial was ongoing, but had littleidea about the actual proceedings. He did not knowhis lawyer’s name. He also felt scared to report any abusesby the police, although he did inform the social workerat the Regional Youth Rehabilitation Centre in Magalangafter he had been transferred. While the social worker confirmedthe instances of abuse, no further action was takenby the social workers. Dan’s bail was set at the equivalentof USD 2,000 – despite the fact that he was onlyten years of age at the time. Such an amount must beviewed as a breach of Dan’s constitutional right to bailand his right to the presumption of innocence.Name: Marko (as of 25.11.2002)Age: 18.Date of Arrest: 22.05. 2001 (when he was aged 16).Charges: Qualified Theft (2 Counts).Manner of Arrest: No arrest Warrant. Handcuffs were used.Informed of Legal and Constitutional Rights: On arrest hewas informed of the reason why, however he was neverinformed of his right to counsel, right to silence etc.Other details: At his post-arrest interview, he had neitherhis legal counsel nor his parents present. He claims thathe was never asked to sign a custodial investigation report.His parents first visited him after 2 weeks (it is notconfirmed when they were informed of his arrest). Firstsocial worker visit after 1 month.Physical and Mental Examination: No.First Appearance in Court: Marko was set to be arraignedon 12.11.2002, nearly 18 months after his arrest. The casewas being transferred to another court at the last minuteand his arraignment was postponed. Marko denies everhaving been present at any inquest investigation or preliminaryinvestigation after his arrest. Marko has thereforeyet to receive the opportunity to question the legalityof his detention. It also appears from his case file thatthe complainant expressed her wish more than a year agoto drop the charges as she is not willing to present evidenceagainst him and has left the country to live inAmerica.Total Period of Detention in Adult Jail: 1 year, 6 monthsand continuing.NOTE: Marko’s predicament is an example of excessive delay.The delay appears to be the fault of the Office of theCity Prosecutor, which appears to have let the case lie dormantfor a year. The Prosecutor’s Office pressed chargesagainst Marko on 30.08.2002, more than a year afterhe was placed in jail. The prosecutor stated that the delaywas caused by her massive workload. Marko’s rights97