MANILA, Philippines - Fugitive Senator Panfilo Lacson has formally filed his opposition to ex-police officer Cezar Mancao II's motion for leave to intervene in the deliberations of the Court of Appeals (CA) on motions for reconsideration (MR) filed by the Dacer family and the Solicitor-General's office on the junking of murder informations against Lacson in connection with the Dacer-Corbito murders.

The appellate court's special Sixth Division, in a ruling dated February 3, 2011, ruled in favor of Lacson mainly on the basis that it found Mancao, who implicated Lacson in the killing, an incredible and untrustworthy witness who, under oath, "contradicted himself on material points."

The court questioned why Mancao implicated Lacson only in his February 13, 2009 affidavit and made no mention of Lacson's alleged participation in his earlier affidavits dated June 2001 and March 2007.

On February 15, 2011, Mancao filed a motion for leave to intervene claiming the appellate court's ruling was "unfair" because he was not party to the case and not given an opportunity to explain alleged inconsistencies in his 3 affidavits in relation to the twin murders.

In his 10-page opposition dated February 24, 2011, Lacson alleged that Mancao's motion "has no legal and factual basis" and consequently, should be denied.

Lacson pointed out that Mancao mislead the court when he alleged he is among the accused in Criminal Cases no. 10272905 and 10272906 (People of the Philippines vs. Panfilo M. Lacson) at the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 18.

"Criminal Cases Nos. 10272905 and 10272906 involve petitioner alone as the sole accused," the opposition read.

'Probable cause doesn't concern Mancao'

Lacson further maintained that the petition for review he filed before the appellate court, in turn, involved the issue of finding of probable cause against him alone.

"It does not involve findings of probable cause with respect to any other person, and certainly not with respect to Mancao. Mancao's participation or role in Criminal Cases Nos. 10272905 and 10272906 is solely that of a witness against petitioner, not as co-accused," the opposition read.

Lacson said assuming, for the sake of argument, that Mancao were a co-accused in said cases, he still did not have any right, standing or interest to intervene, as the only parties-in-interest in said cases are Lacson, himself, and the state.

Lacson stated a Supreme Court ruling in Social Justice Society, et al. vs Atienza where the court held that requisites for intervention by a third person are: (1) legal interest; (2) intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of rights of original parties; (3) intervenor's rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding; and (4) the motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court.

Arguments on requisites

As to requisite no. 1, Lacson maintained that Mancao has no legal interest and is seeking to intervene "only so that he could himself move for the reconsideration" of the appellate court's February 3, 2011 decision.

Lacson further claimed Mancao could not move for reconsideration of the decision because only the Solicitor-General, representing the state, may do so on a ruling favorable to an accused.

As mere witness, Lacson claimed Mancao does not have an interest in both the criminal and civil aspects of the proceedings.

As to requisite no. 2, Lacson said that if the court allowed Mancao's intervention, it would serve as a "grave injustice" to him as it will cause further delays burdening the court "with having to consider additional pleadings by an additional party."

On the third requisite, Lacson said Mancao's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding - in Criminal Case No. 01-191969 - where he stands accused for the Dacer-Corbito murders.

As to the 4th requisite, Lacson maintained Mancao's intervention can no longer be entertained by the appellate court because it has already rendered its decision.

Lacson was directed by the court on February 22, 2011 to file his comment on Mancao's motion for leave to intervene.

Instead of filing a comment, Lacson filed a motion to admit opposition, praying for leave of court for such admission.

In a resolution dated March 1, 2011, the appellate court granted Lacson's leave of court and directed Lacson to comment on public respondents' (Regional Trial Court Manila Branch 18 and People of the Philippines) motion for reconsideration dated February 21, 2011.