Warrant of arrest issued vs Atty. Joel Bander in 2008

Above is a photocopy of the warrant of arrest issued against Atty. Joel Bander in 2008, two years after he was charged with "Acts of Lasciviousness" and "unjust vexation" for allegedly sexually abusing a Filipina in 2006 but has reportedly not appeared in court for months.

Two years after being accused of molesting a Filipina, the U.S. lawyer became a wanted man in the PHL

By Rhony Laigo

Last week, we here at Balita presented compelling evidence that may have disputed the pseudo investigative reporters’ claim in their new newspaper – which they call their new baby – that showed that there was an incident that allegedly took place on July 15, 2006 involving U.S. lawyer Joel Bander for reportedly molesting a Filipina client. The Filipina claimed the incident took place in a Manila when she came to the office of Atty. Joel Bander to help her secure a U.S. visa.

Though graphic in nature, the photocopy of the criminal information we published last week described how Atty. Joel Bander allegedly committed “Acts of Lasciviousness” against the person of one Cristina San Jose Y Aler at the Imperial Bayfront Tower, where Bander allegedly was entertaining clients. The same criminal information was the basis for the People’s Tonight story and its reporter, Allan Bergonia, when he wrote that Bander was slapped with the criminal case for committing “acts of lasciviousness” and “unjust vexation.” A photocopy of the same People’s Tonight story of Mr. Bergonia was also published in our midweek edition, which can be read in its entirety in our website balita.com.

The main reason for presenting the documents in our previous issue was to dispel the claims of the pseudo investigative reporters, who we will refer here as dogs so we can all identify them as being staffmembers of their newspaper which bears part of the same name. Two weeks earlier, these dogs published a story claiming that this author based his letter to the commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration of the Philippines on a “People’s Tonight story” that they said was later “retracted by People’s Tonight.” According to the dogs, People’s Tonight deemed it “untrue and without basis” and that the complainant was “fictitious.” Even the subhead of their article said that this author “was unaware” that the complaint “was filed by (a) fictitious accuser.”

Perhaps, the dogs didn't know that such criminal information did exist that stated that a certain Cristina San Jose swore before a prosecutor when she filed the complaint back in July 2006.

Therein lies the problem of the dogs. The real People’s Tonight story stated that Bander was facing criminal charges based on a true incident report and a true complaint filed before a Manila Prosecutor’s Office, specifically at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 27, as written by Bergonia.

The dogs claimed in their so-called investigative reporting that the same newspaper, People’s Tonight, published the same incident, but the dogs stated that People’s Tonight published it as being filed in Taguig, Branch 78. However, as we presented here last week, and as posted on our website, the story of Mr. Bergonia didn’t make any mention of Taguig, nor Branch 78. Bergonia also wrote that the complaint was filed at the Manila Prosecutor’s Office.

At this juncture, Balita poses this challenge to the dogs – who may have been FED not with “dog food” by their master/owner but maybe RAT POISON (but since they’re animals they ate them anyway not even thinking that they didn’t have the actual documents with them) – to produce their own copy of People’s Tonight that stated otherwise.

Be that as it may, as we have promised last week, we are presenting here another document that may eventually kill whatever credibility these pseudo investigative reporters have (if they had any) for being careless, unprofessional and unworthy of their claim to be the dogs of the community.

As you can see, the warrant of arrest issued against Atty. Joel Bander on July 10, 2008 was based on the same July 2006 incident. Although the dogs reported that Bander attended the initial hearings against him, there were no succeeding appearances made on his behalf or by him in person that warranted his arrest, the Manila prosecutor’s office told Balita.

According to the court, Mr. Bander could no longer be located and that his attorneys could no longer make representations on his behalf. The warrant of arrest was signed by Judge Joel A. Licuanan of Branch 27, Manila, Metropolitan Trial Court.

In 2011, Bander appeared before the same judge, or five years after the 2006 alleged molestation incident and a year after erstwhile BID Commissioner Marcelo Libanan issued a watchlist order on Bander in 2010.

Libanan reportedly found out that Bander made trips to the Philippines at least five times in 2009 but never faced the courts nor inquired about his case, when he knew for a fact that a criminal case was filed against him. He apparently never even informed his lawyers that he’s been to the Philippines several times.

But what’s funny was that the dogs also wrote about the dismissal of the case – a stark evidence that there was indeed a case and has been pending since 2006. For these dogs to infer that People’s Tonight – the most popular afternoon daily tabloid in the Philippines – retracted its own story because it was “untrue” and “without basis” was ill-advised and laughable to say the least. And did we mention that the warrant of arrest was issued in 2008 or two years after the case was filed in a criminal court?

(Next week, we will publish parts of articles that will portray the character of Atty. Joel Bander and why several Filipinos filed a complaint against him at the California State Bar.)

Setting the record straight: Atty. Joel Bander was wanted in the Philippines for 'Acts of Lasciviousness'

A copy of People's Tonight disputes a claim by another newspaper regarding the alleged molestation incident by Atty. Joel Bander against a Filipina woman he claimed to be fictitious.

THE PROBLEM with pseudo investigative reporters is that they never verify any claims, especially if these are provided by their own boss. You may have recently seen a new tabloid in the market that “reported” on events that another newspaper had published, which happened to be us, Balita.

To set the record straight, we are providing here a copy of a People’s Tonight story, (“The High Price of US Visa”) dated July 22, 2006. In the story, you can see that Allan Bergonia wrote that the complaint was filed before the “Manila Prosecutor’s Office.” The complaint was filed, according to the story, “yesterday” or July 21, 2006.

Unlike what the other paper had printed, Bergonia didn’t write any other city or place other than Manila. Maybe the pseudo investigative journalists have a different People’s Tonight copy because they had stated that the complaint was filed in a fiscal’s office that “does not exist.” Also, Bergonia’s story didn’t say any word about “illegal recruitment charges” as published by the other paper.

But the next document that Balita possesses and that we are providing to you here tells a story that such person that the other paper said was “fictitious” may be a real person when she filed the complaint.

How, you may ask?

Above is the criminal information filed by the Manila Prosecutor's Office on October 17, 2006 against Atty. Joel Bander on behalf of a Filipina who claimed that she was molested by Bander. The case "People of the Philippines versus Joel Bander" accused the lawyer of "Acts of Lasciviousness" based on an alleged incident whereby the woman, who said she came to Bander to seek his help in acquiring a U.S. visa, was reportedly abused by Bander back in July 2006.

1. As stated, the case was filed at Branch 27 of the Metropolitan Regional Trial Court, City of Manila as so stamped. The case is docketed as Criminal Case # 433318 and filed on Oct. 17, 2006.

2. The case says “People of the Philippines” versus “Joel Bander” with the address Imperial Bayfront Tower, 1624 A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila. As stated, Joel Bander, who Bergonia wrote was “An alleged trader who assists applicants in securing United States visas” is the accused.

3. 2^nd Assistant City Prosecutor Rector E. Macapagal, Chief of the Eight Division, so stated that the “undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor, upon sworn complaint fi led by the offended party CRISTINA SAN JOSE Y ALER…hereby accuses JOEL BANDER, of the crime of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS...” In case you missed it, UPON SWORN COMPLAINT.

Now, for the benefit of all pseudo investigative reporters, before any prosecutor files a case, a police report is required. According to Bergonia, Ms. San Jose filed the complaint before the Manila Police District.

Bergonia wrote that Bander allegedly molested the complainant and that the incident allegedly took place on July 15, 2006. This means that the prosecutor and the police investigator worked for three months to verify if such complaint merits the filing of the case. To understand this better, perhaps an episode of Law and Order would be helpful, especially for those who never even covered the police beat (where most if not all cub reporters begin their professional careers to become full-fledged journalists) and the courts.

What we’re trying to say here is, the prosecutor doesn’t just invent a person to criminally prosecute any person, let alone a foreigner, which the Philippines has been courting to conduct business in the

Philippines, invest there and spend their dollars in the country. (But then again, U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines Harry Thomas revealed, albeit carelessly, that almost half of all Americans who come to the Philippines go there to engage in sex, but that is another story.)

In the People’s Tonight story, Bergonia wrote that Ms. San Jose said “she gave Bander $100 as partial payment for the visa application.” The story goes that Ms. San Jose had sought Bander’s “help” in getting a U.S. visa.

Several years later, the case was dismissed and Bander claimed that Ms. San Jose was fictitious and because the complaint was based on “trumped up charges.”

It should be noted, however, that Ms. San Jose was seeking Bander’s help for a visa five years earlier, back in 2006. This could mean that Ms. San Jose has been wanting to leave the country for greener pastures.

Balita, which, as mentioned by the other paper, had gone to the Philippines – because this is how an investigative story is conducted – had inquired from the prosecutor’s office about the Bander case. Indeed the documents showed that there was a case filed, that a certain Ms. San Jose swore before a prosecutor, and a People’s Tonight story was published.

Five years may have been too long and perhaps Ms. San Jose is no longer in the Philippines. Besides, how could the case progress when the accused was never present in the Philippines? And this we will present why in our next issue.

(Next week, we will publish here a copy of the warrant of arrest. We will also present more legitimate and legal documents in succeeding issues.)

View Rhony Laigo's news broadcast on Kababayan LA now available on Youtube.