MANILA, Philippines — Senator Robin Padilla is pushing back against allegations that he helped fellow Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa evade arrest, insisting there was no secret getaway when the former police chief left the Senate in Padilla’s vehicle four months ago.
Padilla made the denial after the Department of Justice subpoenaed him over an obstruction-of-justice complaint stemming from Dela Rosa’s departure from the Senate compound in the early hours of May 14.
The senator has been directed to appear before DOJ prosecutors and submit his counter-affidavit on September 25 and October 9, according to the department and multiple news reports.
Padilla says the incident was far less dramatic than investigators allege: Dela Rosa simply asked for a ride.
The Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, however, has offered a very different interpretation, alleging that Dela Rosa’s departure was part of a coordinated effort to prevent his apprehension.
That disagreement — ordinary ride or deliberate assistance to evade arrest — is now at the center of the DOJ investigation.
Padilla: ‘Walang takas na naganap’
Speaking after receiving the subpoena, Padilla again denied that he helped Dela Rosa escape.
He argued that the two senators walked openly toward the vehicle in an area covered by surveillance cameras and surrounded by law-enforcement personnel, rather than secretly fleeing the Senate.
Padilla said Dela Rosa simply got into his vehicle and rode with him. He has previously said he dropped Dela Rosa off in Makati, where another vehicle picked the senator up.
Padilla has questioned how the incident could reasonably be described as an “escape” when police officers and CCTV cameras were present.
CCTV and other records reviewed by authorities showed Dela Rosa leaving the Senate area at around 2:30 a.m. on May 14, while a white Toyota Fortuner was recorded departing shortly afterward. Police later linked the vehicle to Padilla, and Padilla acknowledged that the Fortuner belonged to him.
What remains disputed is not whether Dela Rosa rode in Padilla’s vehicle, but why the trip happened and whether Padilla knowingly helped frustrate an arrest.
Padilla Says He Will Face DOJ Prosecutors
Padilla has indicated that he intends to appear before the DOJ.
After the subpoena was served, he said he was not saddened by the development and would answer the accusations against him.
The DOJ confirmed that subpoenas were served on Padilla and his chief of staff, retired Lt. Col. Jean Alla Yasin Robles, at the Senate on September 15 in connection with the complaint alleging a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829.
Other respondents identified in reporting on the complaint include Virgilio Palaganas Carino Jr. and four unidentified “John Does.”
Padilla’s appearance before prosecutors does not mean that a court has found him guilty or that prosecutors have already determined that a criminal charge should be filed.
The proceedings are part of the DOJ’s preliminary-investigation process, during which the respondents can submit counter-affidavits and evidence before prosecutors determine whether probable cause exists to take the case to court.
What Exactly Is Padilla Accused Of?
The complaint invokes Presidential Decree No. 1829, the Philippine law penalizing obstruction of the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders.
Section 1(c) covers knowingly or willfully harboring, concealing or facilitating the escape of a person when the accused knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, that the person committed an offense, when done to prevent arrest, prosecution or conviction.
The significance of that wording is important.
It means the DOJ investigation is not simply about whether Padilla provided transportation to Dela Rosa.
Prosecutors must examine the circumstances and available evidence to determine whether the statutory requirements for obstruction are met, including the relevant knowledge and intent.
Padilla disputes that his conduct amounted to obstruction.
Police Say It Was More Than a ‘Hitch Ride’
The PNP-CIDG reached a sharply different conclusion during its investigation in May.
Investigators said evidence they gathered — including CCTV footage, witness statements and information on vehicles allegedly involved — indicated that Dela Rosa’s movement was not merely an improvised ride home.
CIDG officials described it at the time as a coordinated and pre-planned logistical operation and said investigators were examining drivers, security personnel and vehicles that allegedly participated.
The police investigation also looked at what authorities described as a backup or escort vehicle.
Those are CIDG allegations and investigative findings, not judicial findings of guilt against Padilla or any of the other respondents.
The DOJ must independently evaluate the evidence and the respondents’ defenses.
Why Authorities Were Trying to Arrest Dela Rosa
The controversy stems from an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for Dela Rosa connected with the Duterte administration’s anti-drug campaign.
The ICC warrant alleges Dela Rosa bears criminal responsibility as an indirect co-perpetrator for the crime against humanity of murder involving at least 32 victims during a period from July 2016 through April 2018, according to reporting on the warrant. Dela Rosa has denied wrongdoing.
Dela Rosa was chief of the Philippine National Police from 2016 to 2018 and was a prominent figure in then-President Rodrigo Duterte’s anti-drug campaign.
Reuters reported in May that Justice Secretary Fredderick Vida said the Philippine government had received the ICC request concerning Dela Rosa and would comply with it. The warrant, although dated earlier, had been unsealed in May.
Dela Rosa has challenged the ICC process, arguing that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction following the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019.
From Senate Protective Custody to Disappearance
The events unfolded rapidly in May.
Authorities attempted to serve the warrant against Dela Rosa on May 11, when he was at the Senate. He subsequently came under Senate protective custody.
Tensions escalated days later.
On the night of May 13, gunfire erupted inside the Senate building during a confrontation involving security personnel and law-enforcement officers.
Hours later, early on May 14, Dela Rosa left the Senate premises.
Reuters reported the following day that his whereabouts were unknown and that the government had issued an immigration lookout order.
GMA News reported this week that Dela Rosa has not appeared publicly since leaving the Senate.
Padilla’s Defense: No Local Warrant, No Secret Escape
Padilla has also argued that, from his perspective at the time, Dela Rosa could not simply be treated as a fugitive based solely on the ICC process.
In previous interviews, Padilla said there was no locally issued court warrant and maintained that Dela Rosa’s departure occurred openly rather than covertly.
That argument sits alongside a broader legal dispute over the Philippines’ obligations toward the ICC following the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute.
The government, however, took a different position in May. Justice Secretary Vida said the ICC arrest request was valid and that Philippine authorities would comply with it, while acknowledging that Dela Rosa had asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
The obstruction investigation against Padilla will therefore turn on the applicable Philippine law and the evidence surrounding his own conduct — not simply on his broader political or legal position regarding the ICC.
There Is Also an Ombudsman Complaint
The DOJ proceeding is not Padilla’s only legal issue arising from the incident.
A separate obstruction complaint has also been brought before the Office of the Ombudsman over his alleged role in Dela Rosa’s departure from the Senate.
Those proceedings are distinct and may follow different processes.
For the DOJ case, the immediate question is whether prosecutors find probable cause after considering the police complaint, supporting evidence and the counter-affidavits of Padilla and the other respondents.
The CCTV May Become Central to Both Sides
One striking feature of the dispute is that both Padilla and investigators are pointing to surveillance footage — but drawing different conclusions from it.
Padilla argues the footage supports his claim that there was no clandestine escape because the senators moved openly through the Senate compound.
Police investigators say CCTV and other evidence support their position that the movements of the people and vehicles involved were coordinated.
That makes the evidence surrounding the minutes before and after the Fortuner left the Senate especially significant.
Who knew what?
Who arranged the vehicles?
Where did Dela Rosa go after Makati?
And did anyone involved intend to prevent authorities from apprehending him?
Those are questions prosecutors will have to evaluate rather than assumptions that can be settled by political statements alone.
What Happens Next
Padilla is scheduled to face DOJ prosecutors on September 25 and October 9 and has been directed to submit his counter-affidavit and supporting evidence.
The preliminary investigation can end in different ways.
Prosecutors could find insufficient basis and dismiss the complaint, or they could determine that probable cause exists and file the appropriate criminal information in court.
For now, Padilla remains a respondent in an investigation, not a person convicted of obstruction of justice.
The factual point Padilla concedes is straightforward: Dela Rosa rode in his vehicle out of the Senate.
The legal question is much harder — whether that ride was merely transportation between two senators or knowingly facilitated the escape of a man authorities were attempting to apprehend.
That is now for prosecutors, and potentially the courts, to determine.
Leave a Reply