The Department of Justice panel has junked drug trafficking charges against suspected drug lords Peter Lim, Kerwin Espinosa and several others.
I’m dumbfounded.
I share Sen. Grace Poe’s feeling of distress. In a statement, Poe said: “I am disturbed by the basis upon which the DOJ panel made its recommendation to dismiss the drug charges against Mr. Espinosa and others. For one, Kerwin Espinosa, himself admitted before a Senate inquiry that he was indeed involved in the drug trade.
“How a self-confessed drug lord like Kerwin Espinosa can be exonerated by the State, is perplexing. It reflects the sloppiness of the police’s investigation and case build up against these drug lords. “
I share Poe’s feeling of being insulted by the DOJ’s basis for the dismissal of charges which was lack of evidence.
“Acting Prosecutor General Catalan claims that Adorvo’s statements are self-serving and contradictory; this should have prompted them to use the entire machinery of the State’s prosecution arm to gather more testimonial and object evidence, rather than lazily relying on this single witness. Naghanap ba talaga ng ebidensya ang prosekyusyon (Did the prosecution really look for evidence)?”
“If this DOJ decision is affirmed by the Secretary of Justice, this would be an insult to the brave policemen who have died in legitimate anti-drug operations,” the lady senator further said.
I share the outrage of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV who said, “The DOJ’s exoneration of these known drug lords is yet another proof that what Duterte unleashed upon us is a fake drug war.
“ Kapag mahirap, walang tanong-tanong, patay agad. Kapag druglords at kumpare pa ni Duterte, may due process na, abswelto pa sa kaso. Kapag kay Sen. De lima, na kalaban sa pulitika, kahit nagka buhol buhol na ang mga scripted na testimonya, sampa agad sa korte para makulong. Mr. Duterte, pinaglololoko mo ang taong bayan. (With the poor, no more questions, They just get killed. If it involves druglords and fellow godfather of Duterte, due process is observed, and charges are dismissed. If against De Lima, never mind if the scripted testimony is inconsistent, case is filed right away so that accused is put in jail. Mr. Duterte, you are taking the Filipino people for a ride.)”
I find the message posted by former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay most sensible: “The DOJ cleared the following: Peter Lim, identified by the President as a drug lord; Kerwin Espinosa, self-confessed drug lord; Peter Co, convicted drug lord.
“And yet Leila de Lima is still in jail for ‘conspiracy’ to trade in drugs.
“This is what you expect from a Fake war on drugs.”
Common sense: Kerwin Espinosa who claimed to have given P8 million from drug money as contribution to Sen. De Lima’s election campaign is innocent, what’s the crime of De Lima?
But then the dismissal of cases against the two and their associates should not really surprise us. The fact that Espinosa testified against De Lima, it was expected that the Duterte government will reward him for it.
In the first place, was Kerwin in a position not to obey Duterte’s wishes? His father , Albuera town Mayor Rolando Espinosa ,was killed in jail in the most unbelievable script ever concocted. The mastermind of the operation was promoted.
Can Kerwin now feel safe that he has been exonerated by the DOJ? Good luck!
As to Peter Lim, whom Duterte himself identified in a TV interview early in his presidency as the “Jaguar” and a leader of the Triad, an international drug syndicate, it has turned out that we were treated to a show. Yes, it was all for a show.
Remember that Lim was granted a special audience to the President in Malacanang where the tough-talking chief executive refused to shake his hands and vowsed:. “I will execute you … I will finish you off.”
In that meeting, Duterte told Lim, who was in the country’s drug syndicate list since 2006, he was willing to help him if indeed he was innocent as he claimed to be: “We want to help you. Help us clear you.”
The Cebu businessman was profuse in his praises of the President who exposed him as a bigtime drug lord. He said: “Our nation is very lucky to have you, because without you, I don’t know. You’re the only President who could save our nation.”
It worked.
Wala akong masabi.
If you file in court with insufficient evidence, and fail to prove the guilt, he walks. You cannot re-file, because double jeopardy sets in. This dismissal is not prejudicial to a re-filing, when sufficient evidence has been gathered to prove guilt in court.
True, Kerwin may be a self-confessed street pharmacist. But how did he confess? With presence of counsel? Was he in custody? If both, then the confession is inadmissible based on Miranda.
I would actually recommend that Aguirre not reverse the dismissal. Meantime, he can give the NBI marching orders to gather evidence to make the charges stick. A dismissal may lull the suspect to complacency. It may also be a good strategy to “surround the city from the countryside”, as Mao used to say. Get the soldiers, charge them, or pay them, and convince them to provide evidence to get the big fish. By big fish, I mean the government protectors of Kerwin. With respect to Kerwin, he is already in jail. Another conviction is just worthless paper to him, unless you can get the death penalty.
That last point was made in an episode in the Tom Selleck series (Blue Bloods). Drug dealer orders a hit of some police captain.
Selleck tells him, we got evidence that you ordered it.
Drug lord says, so what? I am already in for life. Any additional sentence is pointless.
Selleck says, but the police captain was also a Federal agent.
Drug lord again? So what?
Selleck – that makes it a Federal offense. New York does not have the death penalty, but the Feds do. You will be transferred to a Federal facility tonight. When they lethally inject you, I will be in the viewing room. I will wave goodbye to you, for my police captain. (Tom Selleck walks away suppressing a snicker.)
with subpoena powers, cidg can surely dig deeper, look far and wide, and gather more evidence. apparently, in leyte the evidences grow on trees! all one has to do is harvest.
prosecutor/s should be admonish for dereliction of duty. jesus christ, there appears to be collusion tuloy.
anyhow, kapag new evidence is found, pwedeng i-file uli ang kaso, espinosa back to court along with chinese drug lords, lim and go.
ellen tordesillas, suggestion lang po ito: next time po, give dates, like the abswelto of espinosa et al was done on 12 december 2017, tapos, ngayong marso 13, 2018 lang yata natin malamin ang ito. apparently, wigguire was sitting on the decision for god knows how longer still, until journalist brought attention to it, putting a stop.
Duterte promoted to the bench one of the prosecutors who dismissed the case. Was Duterte informed about it before he issued the appointment? If he was, why did he still the appointment? Ah, Polong again.
Why did he still issue the appointment?
SnV,
Kerwin made the admission of his drug dealing during the Senate hearing but the prosecutors didn’t use it.
http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/14/18/kerwins-drug-link-admission-dropped-because-he-wouldnt-talk-cidg
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/975473/prosecutor-on-espinosa-et-al-case-it-is-not-our-job-to-look-for-evidence
The Constitution says “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
How do you introduce Kerwin’s statement in the Senate in Court? Tawagin ng prosecution as hostile witness? A hostile witness is one who does not agree to testify, but is forced by the Court. Hostile, kasi ang kalaban (prosecution) ang tumawag.
The Court cannot force him, because it violates the Constitution. Okay, so may magsasabing nadinig ko sa Senate. Hearsay yon, inadmissible.
Okay so you introduce the Senate transcripts. But transcripts only attest to the fact that something was said, not the truth of what was said. Para bang, sinabi ko sa Senate, oy putatsing si Goyang. It only attests to the fact that I said it, not that it is true that she is a slut.
Okay so Court rules also say you can introduce prior statements. But introducing prior statements is allowed only to impeach a statement in Court. Kung hindi umupo sa witness stand si Kerwin, there is nothing to impeach.
Kung talagang cooperative ang driver, get solid physical evidence. Otherwise, he walks.
Binanggit ko yung episode ni Tom Selleck. Nobody seems to have gotten the import. The druglord there was saying. Eh nasa loob na ako for life, ano pang saysay ng additional sentence? Wala rin, dahil nasa loob na ako. Gago.
So Tom Selleck comes back with, pero Federal agent ang police captain ko. Wala ngang death penalty ang New York, pero meron sa Feds. Doon ka ihahabla. Bitay ka. I will wave goodbye to you from the viewing room. Walk away si Tom Selleck. Tangina mo.
Similarly, hindi mo na matitigil si Kerwin, dahil nasa loob na. Walang saysay ang additional sentence niya. If you want to stop the drug production, tirahin ang coddlers and enablers niya. Sila ang ipasok.
There are different penal statutes per state, and different ones sa Federal. Different courts also try crimes. Yung usual murder, rape, etc., sa State (NY) court. Yung crimes involving Federal officials, among others, tried in Federal (US) courts.
Iba rin ang sentence. May State na walang death penalty (NY), may State na meron (Texas). Ang Federal, may mga crimen na may death penalty.