OSG’s Cruel Crusade: Demanding an Innocent 81-Year-Old Back Behind Bars

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — July 9, 2025

Trapped in a Nightmare: The Wrong Man’s Ordeal

Prudencio Calubid Jr., an 81-year-old retiree, gripped the bars of his cell with arthritic hands for six agonizing months, misidentified as a rebel leader who vanished in 2006. His crime? Sharing a name with a wanted man. In December 2024, the Philippine National Police (PNP) arrested the former technician based on a Facebook photo and what they called an “extensive investigation”—a probe so flimsy it could double as a sitcom script.

On June 27, 2025, the Court of Appeals (CA) granted his daughter’s habeas corpus petition, freeing him with a scathing indictment of the state’s incompetence. Yet, three days later, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) launched a 19-page motion for reconsideration, demanding this frail octogenarian’s return to prison. This isn’t justice—it’s a bureaucratic vendetta against a man already broken by the state’s mistakes.

Legal Smoke and Mirrors: The OSG’s Shameless Dodge

The OSG’s motion is a grotesque display of procedural gymnastics, papering over a travesty with legal jargon. They lean on Rule 117, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, arguing Calubid Jr. waived objections to his arrest by not challenging it before arraignment, and his “voluntary submission” to the trial court “cured” the defect of being the wrong person.

This is Kafkaesque absurdity—since when does arraigning a man with dementia erase the fact that he’s not the target? The CA, citing Salas v. Bunyi-Medina (G.R. No. 251693, 2020), demolished this logic, affirming that habeas corpus exists to correct such injustices, regardless of procedural missteps. In re: Sumulong Torres (G.R. No. 229317, 2019) further guts the OSG’s stance, emphasizing that liberty under Article III, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution overrides technicalities when detention is fundamentally unlawful.

The OSG also claims the PNP’s arrest was valid, backed by a “valid court order” and “extensive investigation.” But the CA exposed this as a lie: the warrant targeted a different Prudencio Calubid, an NDFP consultant missing since 2006, and the PNP’s “investigation” hinged on a Facebook photo and shaky witness IDs. Rule 113, Section 2 demands warrants specify the person to be arrested, yet the PNP ignored Calubid Jr.’s birth certificate, marriage contract, and decades-long residence in Olongapo.

The OSG’s defense is so thin it could double as the PNP’s “investigative rigor”—a legal sleight-of-hand to save face for a blunder that stole six months of an old man’s life.

The PNP’s Colossal Failure: A Facebook Fiasco Masquerading as Police Work

The PNP’s “investigation” is the rotting core of this scandal. The CA found “overwhelming evidence” that Calubid Jr., a retired technician with a Saudi work history, was not the wanted rebel. Yet the PNP, in a display of detective work that would embarrass a Reddit sleuth, relied on a Facebook profile and called it “comprehensive.”

As Karapatan aptly put it: “The OSG isn’t defending the state—it’s laundering police incompetence with Latin phrases.” The PNP’s failure to verify Calubid Jr.’s identity within his community—where he’s lived for decades—violates basic due diligence under Rule 113, Section 5.

The OSG’s claim that prosecution witnesses “identified” him in court only compounds the farce: if your witnesses can’t distinguish an 81-year-old retiree from a long-missing guerrilla, your case is a house of cards built on a sinkhole.

This isn’t just one officer’s mistake—it’s systemic rot. The PNP’s reliance on social media over actual police work reflects a broader collapse of investigative standards. Salas v. Bunyi-Medina underscores that habeas corpus is the remedy when police botch identification so badly it robs an innocent man of liberty. Detaining an elderly man with chronic kidney disease, arthritis, and gout for six months based on a Facebook photo isn’t law enforcement—it’s a human rights violation in handcuffs.

Justice Demands Blood: Holding the Guilty Accountable

The OSG’s motion isn’t just a legal misfire; it’s an ethical slaughter. The Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1, demands lawyers act as “ministers of justice,” not hired guns propping up police failures. The OSG’s role as the “people’s tribune” should compel them to protect citizens like Calubid Jr., not chain them to the state’s errors.

Their push to re-jail an ailing octogenarian reeks of bad faith, prioritizing bureaucratic pride over human dignity. Article III, Section 15 guarantees liberty against unlawful restraint, yet the OSG seems more invested in shielding the PNP than upholding justice.

Accountability must sting. The PNP officers who botched this arrest should face scrutiny under Republic Act No. 9745 (Anti-Torture Act) for the psychological and physical toll of Calubid Jr.’s detention—six months in a cell for a man whose kidneys are failing is torture by neglect. Prosecutors who greenlit this farce deserve a judicial audit to expose how such a travesty reached the courts.

The OSG itself needs a reckoning: their motion reads like a loyalty oath to state power, not a defense of the public interest. Memo to Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe: next time, ensure your office reads the defendant’s birth certificate before demanding an innocent man’s shackles.

Systemic fixes are non-negotiable. The PNP’s investigative protocols need a top-to-bottom overhaul to prioritize verifiable evidence over social media hunches. Courts must tighten scrutiny of arrest warrants to prevent mistaken identities from ruining lives. And the OSG should rediscover its moral spine—defending the state doesn’t mean excusing its atrocities.

Final Blow: A Legacy of Shame

The CA saw a broken old man, wrongfully caged by a state too careless to check his name. The OSG sees a bureaucratic checkbox, a technicality to exploit, a chance to save face. History will judge which side fought for justice and which hid behind paperwork.

For Prudencio Calubid Jr., justice isn’t a 19-page motion—it’s the right to live his twilight years free from a government that mistook him for a ghost. The OSG’s crusade isn’t just wrong; it’s a stain on the soul of Philippine law.

Key Citations

Rule 113, Section 2, Rules of Court: Requires warrants to particularly describe the person to be arrested.
Rule 117, Section 8, Rules of Court: Failure to challenge arrest legality before arraignment may waive objections.
Article III, Section 15, 1987 Constitution: Guarantees the right to liberty and the availability of habeas corpus.
Salas v. Bunyi-Medina, G.R. No. 251693 (2020): Affirms habeas corpus as a remedy for mistaken identity.
In re: Sumulong Torres, G.R. No. 229317 (2019): Prioritizes liberty over procedural technicalities in habeas cases.
Republic Act No. 9745 (Anti-Torture Act): Defines torture and mandates accountability for state agents.
Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1: Lawyers must serve as ministers of justice.
Inquirer, 2025: OSG wants octogenarian tagged as NPA back in jail
Karapatan, 2025: Rights group slams OSG’s motion for reconsideration, return to prison of elderly political prisoner

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.