Wrong resolution

Something is really fishy and extremely wrong with the Department of Justice (DOJ) resolution dated Dec. 20, 2017 dismissing the complaint of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) against known drug lords for drug trafficking. In said resolution, the DOJ cleared Peter Lim, a Cebu-based businessman and well known drug lord, campaign supporter and kumpare of President Duterte, was cleared of charges of drug trafficking. Also cleared were Kerwin Espinosa who earlier admitted in a Congressional hearing that he was a drug dealer, drug trafficker Peter Co now confined in New Bilibid Prison, as well as Max Miro, Ruel Malindangan, Jun Pepito, Lovely Adam Impal and 12 other unnamed persons.

Quite noticeable and apparently amiss is that the resolution was dated Dec. 20, 2017 but was kept under wraps until reporters obtained a copy from a DOJ insider last March 12. Such a clandestine move cannot help but raise lots of suspicions by the people that the resolution is really questionable and controversial. And indeed it is.

The resolution dismissed the complaint filed by the PNP CIDG against the above-named respondents for sale, administration, trading, delivery and transportation of illegal drugs punishable by Republic Act (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. According to the DOJ panel of prosecutors which conducted the preliminary investigation there is no probable cause to charge them in court. But does the complaint really lack of probable cause?

Undeniably, the investigation conducted by the DOJ was a preliminary investigation pursuant to Rule 112 Section 2 of the Rules of Court. “At a preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice only determines whether the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged” (Metrobank vs. Tobia III, 664 SCRA, 165). In conducting the preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor or the DOJ only determines whether he should take further action by filing a criminal complaint in court based on the evidence presented (Meralco vs. Atilano, 675 SCRA, 112).

For purposes of filing a complaint or information in court, “probable cause refers to facts and circumstances sufficient to engender a well founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondents probably committed them (Elma vs Jacob 675 SCRA, 20). Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite a belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted (Burgundy Corp. vs Reyes, 687 SCRA 524). The quantum of evidence required to prove probable cause is not the same quantum of evidence needed to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt which is required in a criminal case that may subsequently be filed (Microsoft vs. Maxicorp, 438 SCRA 224).

In this case, the prosecutor must have known: that Kerwin Espinosa has already admitted in a Congressional inquiry that he was a drug dealer; that Peter Lim was involved in the illegal drug trade in Central Visayas and is in the top five most wanted list of drug traffickers of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). While he has denied these allegations, it is not the prosecutor but the court who should determine which side is telling the truth; that Peter Co is a Bilibid Prison drug trafficker along with the rest of the named respondents. He was also one of those who implicated then Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima who is now detained on drug charges.

Applying the definition of probable cause as established by the above cited jurisprudence, it is quite clear that based on the facts and circumstances known to the investigating prosecutors there is reasonable ground to believe that the above mentioned respondents should be tried in court. So it is clear and indubitable that the DOJ grossly committed a mistake in dismissing the charges against the respondent for lack of evidence.

This gross error on the part of the DOJ can readily be seen from the furious and angry reactions of the mass of people. Such reaction is best summarized  by the following comment posted and shared in social media which says: “Kung mga mahihirap na adik patay sa kanto, kung mga drug lords at kumpari ni Presidente, pawawalang sala.”       

The peoples’ angry and furious reaction has not escaped the notice of the President. Right after the news of the dismissal of the charges he immediately tried to steer clear of the DOJ resolution especially because of the the high profile drug trafficker, businessman Peter Lim is his kumpadre and one of his campaign supporters. He even castigated his DOJ Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre for issuing such a resolution and warned him that he would replace Espinosa and Lim in jail if they are cleared.

Again such reaction appears to be for purposes of public consumption only and obviously done to appease the angry mass of people. The President cannot disown such resolution or knowledge about it because his DOJ secretary and cabinet member is supposed to be his alter ego. So when the DOJ issued said resolution, he is issuing it for and in behalf of the President.

But more alarming and dangerous in clearing these high profile illegal drug personalities is that the resolution cannot be reviewed and reconsidered anymore as it was dated last Dec. 20, 2017. In fact considering that Lim and company have already been cleared, they may be able to slip out of the country and will thus be beyond the reach of the long arm of the law just like what happened to Matobato, a self-confessed member of the Davao Death Squad who admitted killing a couple on orders of then mayor and now president. Thus people cannot help but conclude that somehow our President may really have something to do with these wrong decisions and resolutions favoring suspected drug lords and killers.

*     *      *

Email: [email protected]