The abduction allegations against Dr. Maria Natividad Castro (Doc Naty), a human rights and public health champion, have been dismissed by a court, which found that the police’s arrest of her last month was “repugnant to [her] right to liberty.”
Delfin “Jun” Castro Jr., the doctor’s older brother, said Doc Naty got out of detention on Wednesday. She was reunited with her siblings and several fellow public health workers. The doctor was arrested and immediately flown to Mindanao by the police, leaving her whereabouts unknown to her family.
The arrest of the 53-year-old doctor sparked indignation among her medical colleagues and her high school and college alma maters, and human rights organizations.
The Bayugan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 7 found no probable cause against Doc Naty and ordered her release from the Agusan del Sur provincial jail. She had been incarcerated for more than 40 days, according to a March 25 ruling.
“Without probable cause, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the accused, which warrants the dismissal of this case,” said acting Presiding Judge Fernando Fudalan Jr.
Court junks abduction case vs. human rights advocate Doc Naty
The case was dismissed on two grounds: the denial of Castro’s “substantive right” to due process and the absence of jurisdiction over the doctor, according to Fudalan.
Castro’s principal lawyer, Wilfred Asis of the Free Legal Assistance Group (Flag), submitted a petition to have the kidnapping and serious illegal detention case against her dismissed because no preliminary investigation was completed before she was kidnapped in her San Juan City residence on February 18.
Castro was detained without a subpoena and based on a warrant that included the names and aliases of 468 suspects. Furthermore, she was not correctly recognized in the warrant. She was named “Dra. Maria Natividad.”
“A preliminary investigation without a subpoena being issued to the respondent is offensive to due process,” Fudalan ruled. “Either intentional or a product of omission, the same produces a serious effect repugnant to respondent’s right to liberty.”
“No amount of reason, like what the prosecution raised that respondent is an NPA (New People’s Army) member and have no permanent address, would ever justify its non-issuance,” the judge said.
Visit our Facebook page for more news updates.