 |
| The Filipino will be deported, now that his last case has been decided at the High Court. |
A Filipino jailed in 2019 for using a false instrument to withdraw US$943 billion from HSBC, claiming the amount was given to him by the late Philippine dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., failed to gain freedom today, through a habeas corpus application asking the High Court to declare his detention illegal.
Brudencio J. Bolanos, 73, will thus remain at the Tai Tam Gap
Detention Center in Chai Wan while he awaits deportation tomorrow, now that the
last court case involving him has been resolved.
Court
of First Instance Judge Russell
Coleman said in
a writen decision: “…in this hearing, the real focus is on whether there
is and continues to be lawful detention.
In my view, there is. But, it is
also clear that the detention can cease very shortly, tomorrow, upon the
intended repatriation of the Applicant.”
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
Senior
Government Counsel Hikki Wong, who appeared for the Secretary for Security and Director
of Immigration whom Bolanos sued for habeas corpus, said detaining the Filipino
so that he could be deported is lawful and continues to be lawful even for an
extended time.
She
added that his age and state of health do not affect the legality of his
detention.
Asked
by Judge Coleman to give his final word on the case, Bolanos pleaded to be
freed because he feared for his life while in detention.
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
He
said his HSBC account that held the US$943 billion he got from Marcos had
been hacked and drained to zero balance by an Indian using a supercomputer. He named
a lawyer as mastermind and the one who has paid someone to kill him.
But he said he could still recover the amount with a newer
Chinese quantum computer that is 100 times more powerful than the one used to
hack his account. He submitted
a one-page document about the hacking.
Bolanos
was arrested on April 9, 2018 – seven days after he arrived as a visitor – for presenting
a false instrument to withdraw US$943 billion from an HSBC branch. He pleaded
not guilty at trial, but was convicted and sentenced in Dec. 30, 2019 to four
years’ imprisonment.
 |
| Press for details |
“In
passing sentence,” Judge Coleman said, “the Judge noted that the case involved
a joint enterprise, involving some degree of planning, in which the Applicant
had flown all the way to Hong Kong to commit the offence, and where the large
amount involved and the international element were aggravating factors.”
Bolanos
appealed, but the Court of Appeal affirmed his sentence on Aug. 23, 2021. “The
Court held that the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory. The sentence was described as ‘robust’ but was
not considered to be manifestly excessive.” Judge Coleman said.
But
he noted that “by that time, the Applicant had in fact served his sentence, but
he insisted on continuing with his appeal.”
 |
| BASAHIN ANG DETALYE |
The
reason was that he wanted to stay in Hong Kong despite a Deportation Order made
against him on Dec. 20, 2020 upon completion of his prison term, and his
detention had been transferred to Immigration pending his deportation.
In
his habeas corpus application, Bolanos said he had been detained for more than
19 months, pending deportation.
But
Judge Coleman noted that it was Bolanos who caused his release – and deportation
-- to be delayed.
On
Jan. 17, 2021, seven months before he appealed his sentence and while in
detention, Bolanos filed a non-refoulement claim (NRC) on the ground that he would be tortured if returned to the Philippines. His application was rejected by the Immigration
Director on March 15, 2021.
A
series of Notices of Appeal and Petitions against the rejection were filed before
the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office.
When
these ended with a rejection on Aug. 19, 2021, Bolanos appealed to the High
Court which issued a ruling on Aug. 17, 2022 rejecting his request for a
judicial review on the ground that it had no realistic prospect of success.
“Between
August and December 2021, the Director consulted operating airlines to explore
the feasibility of forced repatriation because of the Applicant’s expressed
unwillingness to return to the Philippines.
However, that was not possible given security concerns and the infection
control during the Covid-19 pandemic,” Judge Coleman said.
After
his passport expired on Dec. 11, 2021, Immigration asked the Philippine Consulate
General for a replacement travel document. When it was issued on Aug. 23, 2022,
Bolanos refused to sign it.
After
the Philippine Consulate confirmed that the travel document was still valid
even without his signature, a forced repatriation flight was arranged for tomorrow,
Sept. 20, 2022.
 |
| PADALA NA! |
 |
