“ALABANG BOYS” & OTHER DRUG CASES
The Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs conducted a number of hearings
to deal with the difficulties in implementing RA 9165 in recent drug cases
particularly that which involved the “Alabang Boys” in order to determine the
necessary legislative measures that have to be undertaken.
Hearing on January 06, 2009
• Resado concluded that the warrantless arrest is invalid
• Resado did not conduct clarificatory questioning
• Resado did not verify the bribery allegations from PDEA
• Arbitrary detention cannot be invoked due to the voluntary
waiver
• Evidences’ strengths & weaknesses can be subjected to
presentation & cross-examination
• Atty. Verano sent the unsigned Order of Release to Secretary
Gonzalez
• The period prescribed on the waiver of detention is violated
• Resado did not believe that there was a buy-bust operation
Hearing on January 7, 2009
• Resolution is not executory pending the automatic review
• Petition for habeas corpus is premature
• The Order of Release was issued prior to the expiration of the 36hour period
• NBI would include DOJ and PDEA in the investigation
• Jan. 5 DOJ Circular: No release of resolutions during automatic
reviews
• Zuño: PDEA and Prosecutors could be charged with arbitrary
detention
• Before January 5, respondents are released upon the issuance of
the Resolution of Dismissal
• Order of Release was not incorporated in previous Resolutions of
Dismissal
Hearing on January 23, 2009
• Resado: Not waiving right under RA 1405 (Secrecy of Bank
Deposits)
• Resado did not verify the source of the account information from
the bank
• Bribery can be established with circumstantial evidence
• Resado accused Lazaro of bribery
• Without the waiver, Resado would be constrained to file the case
• Arbitrary detention was filed against PDEA, but not DOJ
• Resado: Suppression of evidence was committed by PDEA
• Resado: The chemistry report had numerous errors
Hearing on February 5, 2009
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DOJ personnel were issued notices but the PDEA people were
issued subpoenas by the Fact-Finding Committee
DOJ Prosecutors do not provide assistance in handling evidence
Case against Cai Qing Hai was dismissed due to insufficient
evidence
Release Order of Cai Qing Hai was issued by Zuño
Usec. Blancaflor waived his right under RA 1405 & 6426 for his
Metrobank account
AMLC cannot disclose the results of its investigation without the
waiver of the depositor
Banks have been cooperative in AMLC’s investigation
First-time positive confirmatory drug result is not a ground for
expulsion or any disciplinary action
There is no resolution yet on whether pushers who are also users
should be rehabilitated or charged with a criminal case
Disclosure of tax returns can be made only on certain
circumstances
Hearing on February 12, 2009
• The statements of the respondents during the Fact-Finding
Committee hearing may be used against them
• For drug-related cases, AMLC can examine bank accounts even
without a court order
• AMLC is taking action on the case of the “Alabang Boys”
• AMLC will disclose the results of its investigation to the
appropriate agency which excludes Congress
• AMLC is finalizing its report on Usec. Blancaflor’s Metrobank
account
• Resado confirmed that he is not waiving his right to the secrecy of
his bank deposit
• Resado did not invoke his right to self-incrimination during the
hearing of the Fact-Finding Committee
• On a court case filed by security guards -PTA: Prosecutor Resado had been negligent
Resado: PTA had a settlement
• The resolution dated December 2 was actually prepared on
November 28
• Resado intends to appeal the decision of the CSC on the PTA case
• Resado has to refund the back wages demanded from PTA due to
the reversed CSC decision
Hearing on February 19, 2009
• Jorge Joseph invoked his right to remain silent
• Brodett witnessed the interception of Joseph’s car
• Brodett drove off in fear
• Allegedly, there was substitution in the urine sample of Brodett
• The respondents filed a case against PDEA at the CHR
•
•
PDEA agents will not invoke their right to silence nor selfincrimination
Brodett’s parents and a lawyer arrived in PDEA within two hours
Hearing on March 2, 2009
• A security officer of Ayala Alabang Village testifies
• The PDEA agents confirmed their authority to the respondents
• The security officer did not include certain significant details in
his report
• Allegedly, a security officer was threatened by a PDEA agent
Hearing on May 5, 2009
• BOI has been alerted on the Subic drug case suspects
• PDEA will reveal the personalities involved in the drug cases in
an executive meeting
Hearing on May 12, 2009
• Anton Ang claimed that the boxes contained sensitive computer
parts
• The follow-up investigation did not materialize
• Three more seizures of shabu
• Subic Freeport is separate from the Philippine Customs territory
• Illegal drugs are subject to immediate seizure even within Subic
Bay’s premises
Hearing on May 19, 2009
• Prosecutor: Upon weighing the evidence, there was no probable
cause
• The Subic drug case was not endorsed to PDEA
• Facts were added to the amended complaint
• There is only one complaint for four seizures
• No case was filed for the June 7 seizure
Hearing on May 20, 2009
• Hua Long International Corporation is a consignee of Subic Bay
Freeport
• The officials did not comply with the procedure when they
boarded Shun Fa Xing
• The procedures in unloading goods were not complied with
• SBMA officials may open suspicious cargoes
• Vessels submit an application entry which contains the
declaration of cargoes
HEARING ON JANUARY 06, 2009
Resado concluded that the warrantless arrest is invalid
REP. BARZAGA. Well, I am sorry to say that it seems that you have a
wrong impression of the existing jurisprudence. Based on your statement a while
ago that when you conduct primarily investigation you are acting as a judge and
for the record, I would be citing the ruling made by the Supreme Court in
Bautista versus Court of Appeals, holding that a preliminary investigation is not a
quasi-judicial proceeding and this is the reason. The prosecutor in a preliminary
investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does
not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions. Preliminary investigation is
merely inquisitorial and is often the only means of discovering the person who
may be reasonably charged with the crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare his
complaint or information. It is not on the trial of the case on the merits and has
no purpose except that of determining whether the crime has been committed
and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.
While the fiscal makes the determination, he cannot said to be acting a quasi
court for it is the courts ultimately that pass judgment on the accused, not the
fiscal. And as a matter of fact you would agree with me that the quantum of
evidence or the volume of evidence is much less for the purpose of determining
whether there is a probable cause as compared to the quantum or sufficiency of
evidence for the purpose of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Will you agree with me?
MR. JOHN RESADO (State Prosecutor, National Prosecution Service). I
should qualify that, Your Honor please.
REP. BARZAGA. I’ll go to another point. On September…Let’s hear your
answer, your qualification investigation is a quasi-judicial procedure in which we
evaluate the evidence presented, assess the documents presented. We are not
claiming that we are a judge in the proceedings but we are exercising a quasijudicial procedure wherein we have to determine the existence of probable cause
base on the evidence presented. We are… (Interrupted)
REP. BARZAGA. I’ll go on another point. The buy-bust operation or this
incident took place on September 19. I will be citing to you a newspaper report, a
newspaper article dated September 23, 2008 which appeared in the Philippine
Star with the name of the reporter Edu Tunay and I will be citing certain
statements from the newspaper report. Number one, “State Prosecutor John
Resado went to the PDEA headquarters in Quezon City where the arrested drug
suspects are currently detained for the inquest proceedings. Second, the
prosecutor “- referring to you – “has recommended no bail for all charges against
the three suspects who reportedly belong to prominent families. He also set the
preliminary investigation on the complaint on September 29.”
Another quotation. “PDEA Information Office Chief Derick Carreon said that they
have to file charges in a Sunday in order to comply with the law requiring the
filing of criminal charges 36 hours after the arrest of the suspects. “ Were you
aware of these publications where your name was prominently mentioned?
MR. RESADO. No, Your Honor, but I understand I want to answer those
allegations in the newspaper, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. Did you go to PDEA headquarters in Quezon City?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Did you make a statement that you will be recommending
no bail for all the three suspects?
MR. RESADO. No, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. You set your preliminary investigation on September 29.
MR. RESADO. Maybe, Your Honor, I cannot recall the exact date, maybe.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. Now, my follow up question is that at the time that
you visited the accused or the boys in PDEA headquarters, what was the basis of
their detention? Did you inquire (from) the PDEA why they were there?
MR. RESADO. Your Honor, I called upon to conduct an inquest proceeding
and that is the purpose of the Task Force to accommodate the law enforcement,
Your Honor, and on that date when I came, the papers are not ready. I came back
on a Sunday until night, Your Honor, because the papers are not ready.
REP. BARZAGA. Many of us… many of the persons here are not lawyers,
could you please brief us or explain to us what do you mean by inquest
proceedings?
MR. RESADO. Inquest proceedings, Your Honor, is that the accused who is
supposed to be arrested without a valid warrant of arrest, it presupposes that
they are caught in flagrante delicto or caught in the act. Now the fiscal doing the
inquest will have the duty to determine the validity of the arrest without warrant
and to determine the probable cause. Those are the only two things that should
be inquired upon the fiscal, if those two are presented. But if the respondents or
the arrested persons execute a waiver of their detention and request for a
preliminary investigation, then, it is our duty to conduct a preliminary
investigation in order to give opportunity for all the respondents to submit
counter-affidavits or evidence on their behalf, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Thank you very much for that explanation. Did you
actually conduct an inquest?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And did you file charges?
MR. RESADO. No, Your Honor.
MR. RESADO. Because the… (Interrupted)
REP. BARZAGA. In inquest as long as the requisites for a valid arrest are
presented, your obligation is to file charges. On the other hand, if after
conducting the inquest and there are no sufficient basis for the arrest as well as
there is no sufficient evidence, your obligation is to dismiss the charges and
require them to regain their liberty. Will that be correct?
MR. RESADO. That is not true, Your Honor, because in this case there was
a waiver.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay so at that time you intended to conduct an inquest,
was there already a waiver?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor
REP. BARZAGA. If there is a waiver there is no need for an inquest, will
you agree with me?
MR. RESADO. That is part of the inquest, Your Honor. Submission of the
waiver and request for preliminary investigation is part of the inquest
proceedings, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So we are mingling up legal things here. So in other
words, there was already a waiver and therefore since there is a waiver, there
would be a preliminary investigation pursuant to Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
MR. RESADO. They decided to execute the waiver on that particular date
of inquest proceedings, Your Honor, assisted by counsels.
REP. BARZAGA. Was the waiver executed?
REP BARZAGA. (Continuing)… executed in your presence?
MR.RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Were you the one (who) requested them to execute a
waiver considering (that) if they will not be waiving their detention, you will
conduct the inquest, and in all likelihood you will be filing the charges?
MR. RESADO. It was their lawyers who requested the waiver, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Who were the lawyers?
MR. RESADO. The lawyers are Attorney Felisberto Verano, Attorney
Jacqueline Verano, Attorney Lagumbay, Attorney… those are the lawyers
present. During the preliminary investigation there were additional lawyer
that… lawyers came.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay, So, In other words, in so far as the waiver is
concerned, there is no issue in so far as the waiver is concerned. It was voluntary
(as) executed by the three boys by their lawyers and you are personally aware of
that?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. Now in the resolution you have actually stated that
the arrest is illegal. Warrantless arrest as well as seizure with… search warrant
without any search warrant, will that be correct?
MR. RESADO. No, Your Honor. It should be distinguished, these
statements, Your Honor. When you conduct… when you assert that you
conducted a buy-bust operation its within… (Interrupted)
REP. BARZAGA. No, I’m not talking about the buy-bust operation. I’m
talking about your conclusion. You concluded that warrantless arrests as well as
the search without any search warrant were illegal.
MR. RESADO. I am not looking for any search warrant or warrant of
arrest, Your Honor, because we are talking here of exemptions.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay, I’ll refer to you you’re… John Resado, December…
second to the last paragraph of the last page of your resolution. “Considering all
the arguments above, the warrantless arrests of all the respondents and the
warrantless searches of their vehicles and the persons are thereby illegal. “ Are
you not saying that you made a conclusion that the warrantless arrests as well as
the warrantless searches are illegal?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor, because there are two types of warrantless
search, seizure. One is the valid warrantless arrest; the other is invalid
warrantless arrest, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. That’s why you said it is illegal.
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. As a matter of fact, you even went further that the
article seized as well as the persons who were detained are actually the fruits of
the poisonous tree and. Therefore, in legal parlance they do not have any legal
effect. Will you agree on that?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay, well in short on the basis of your resolution, hindi
mo paniniwalaan ang allegation o ang ebidensiya ng PDEA at ang pinaniwalaan
mo ay iyong alegasyon nung tatlong bata as well as their witnesses. Will that be
correct?
MR. RESADO. That is not correct, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. What is correct? Paniniwalaan mo ba iyong allegation ng
PDEA at paniniwalaan mo rin sa... iyong allegation ng mga akusado?
MR. RESADO. Your Honor, Please, we should understand including the
non-lawyers that in every criminal prosecution the success or the failure of the
complaint rest on the strength or weakness of the prosecution itself, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. Mr. Prosecutor, I’m reminding you that we are not
yet trying the respondents. We are just finding... We are just looking as to
whether or not there is a probable cause to have a well grounded belief that a
crime has been committed and probably the three boys are guilty. Ngayon
dalawa lang naman yan eh. There are two sides of this controversy- the side of
the PDEA and the side of the respondents. Sa madaling sabi, when you move the
dismissal of the case, ang pinaniniwalaan mo iyong allegation ng mga bata. Is
that correct?
MR. RESADO. That is not correct, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. Okay, let’s clarify. Sinabi mo kanina na medyo hindi
kapanipaniwala na iyong buy-bust money ay nasuklian. Is that correct?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Hindi kapani-paniwala iyan, okay. Sinabi mo rin na iyong
clutch bag naandoon sa kotse pero nakabukas, pero kahit na nakabukas at nasa
kotse nakita ng mga PDEA kung ano ang laman ng clutch bag. Tama ba iyon?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor, highly improbable.
REP. BARZAGA. Sinabi mo rin kanina that there is only one person who
conducted the buy-bust. Is that correct?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And that is highly improbable?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
Resado did not conduct clarificatory questioning
REP. BARZAGA. For how long you have been a prosecutor?
MR. RESADO. Three years, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. For how long you have been handling cases coming from
PDEA?
MR.RESADO. Maybe in that period also, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay and you are aware of Rule 112 regarding
preliminary investigation?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. You know the so called clarificatory questioning?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Did you conduct clarificatory questioning?
MR.RESADO. No, because the affidavits are clear, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Ah. What is the purpose of clarificatory questioning? To
clarify matters. Hindi mo ba inisip na dapat i-clarify namin si PDEA? Bkit iisa ang
poseur-buyer? Bakit ninyo nakita itong clutch bag kahit na ito ay nasa sasakyan?
Bakit… Bakit..The other one, iyong isa, bakit iyong pera ay nagkaroon pa kayo ng
sukli? Do you think that these are material matters?
MR. RESADO. The matter of clarificatory questions are best left on the
sound discretion of the prosecutor, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So, it is vested in you?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. And you did not think that (it was) necessary to
conduct clarificatory questioning?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor, because the affidavits are clear, the
statements are clear over the parties. There is nothing to clarify, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Eh bakit sabi mo ngayon clear, eh ikaw mismo nagdududa
na hindi kapani- paniwala iyong sinasabi ng PDEA? Bakit hindi mo nilinaw si
PDEA?
Resado did not verify the bribery allegations from PDEA
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Just one last point. This is my last point. Well, according to
newspaper report, September 23, 2008, and I read, “PDEA Director-General
Dionisio Santiago admitted that some influential personalities called him up and
tried to discuss about the three suspects but he said that he did not respond to
them.”
Another news report in Philippine Star dated October 18, 2008, entitled,
“PDEA Chief bares twenty million bribe, death threats, for Ayala Alabang drug
suspects’ release.” This is October 18 and it says, “PDEA Director-General
Dionisio Santiago confirmed that some people close to one of the three rich kids
arrested last September 20 have offered twenty million for his release.” I noticed
from your resolution that the resolution was dated December 2, 2008. At the
time you made the resolution, were you aware about these newspaper reports as
well as allegations that there has been alleged bribery attempts?
MR. RESADO. I heard it in the news, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And what did you do?
MR. RESADO. Nothing, Your Honor. What would I do, Your Honor?
REP. BARZAGA. Did you not inquire from PDEA as to whether or not their
allegations are true?
MR. RESADO. It is not my duty to inquire, Your Honor, to them regarding
that allegation, then they have to prove that. I have… my function, Your Honor, is
to investigate the case not to inquire on the bribery attempts on PDEA, Your
Honor. So I do not feel any urgency for me to inquire about the bribery. My duty
is to conduct investigation on that case, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. So, in other words, finally based on your conclusion,
even if there are allegations of hundred of millions of pesos of bribery…bribery
in the case of you a… in the case which you are handling. You don’t know… You
don’t do anything. You don’t care.
MR. RESADO. No, Your Honor, and besides it was not… never… it was
never alleged in the records, your Honor. In the pleadings submitted by PDEA.
REP. BARZAGA. That would be all, Mr. Chair.
Arbitrary detention cannot be invoked due to the involuntary waiver
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Just one legal point. Well, we have to remember that all
the accused are under waiver. They have waived the right and therefore, they are
willing to be detained. Will it not be a reasonable interpretation that until there
has been final resolution of the case against them, it is only at the time that their
waiver will be terminated?
MR. PHILIP KIMPO (Senior State Prosecutor, Department of Justice): Well,
Your Honor, I do not think so, Your Honor, because…
REP. BARZAGA. But what I have read in the newspaper is that they would
be filing cases against arbitrary detention, writ of habeas corpus, writ amparo.
But in this particular case there was a voluntary waiver, assisted by lawyers.
And, therefore, if there is consent voluntarily, there will, there will be no injury.
They cannot invoke that.
MR. KIMPO: If, Your Honor,…may I respond to that, Your Honor?
With respect to…well, Your Honor, with respect to…waiver is only a
remedy during inquest because without waiver the inquest will come in and only
based on the evidence of the prosecution. And therefore, naturally, it might be
filing…at least the arrest is illegal. So it is a remedy for the respondent to
have…to opt for a regular criminal investigation by waiving his right to Article
125 of the Rules of Court wherein it says that the respondent must only be held
for 12 hours, 18 hours, and 36 hours. And after that, the case must be filed.
Because the waiver…
Remarks of Congressmen Cuenco and Zialcita
Evidences’ strengths & weaknesses can be subjected to presentation &
cross-examination
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Just an inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Just an inquiry to General
Santiago. Do you refer city cases to the Prosecutor Office instead (of) referring
the cases to DOJ? For example, this case which happened in Alabang. Under the
law, it can be referred to the City Prosecutor of the City of Alabang? Are we doing
that? Or is it your procedure na lahat ire-refer n’yo muna sa DOJ?
MR. DIONISIO SANTIAGO (Director-General, PDEA). Ahh… hindi ho, Mr.
Chairman, Your Honor. And DOJ is 24 hours service yan. Yun hong ating ibang
piskalya, sarado ho pagka daytime, after office hours. So para kami mabilis, hindi
kami ma-technical, then ipapasa namin sa DOJ. Nag-uusap ho kami. Hatinggabi,
nag-uusap kami. So 24 hours ang service ho sila kaya si… in some cases, sa kanila
ho, hindi ho lahat ng cases. Depende sa availability ng Prosecut… fiscal… piskalya
ho.
REP. BARZAGA. But in Manila as well as Quezon City and in Makati, I think
they are open 24 hours. They are inquest fiscals.
MR. SANTIAGO. As a matter of fact. Ginagamit ho namin. For information
din ho, pagka may duda ho kami sa certain area, we go to Executive Judges na
may jurisdiction nationwide, Quezon City and Manila ho, sila Judge Rose. So kami
ho kung ano yung puwedeng remedy sa amin, na mai-aapply namin, ina-apply
namin. Hindi ho kami selective. Where we can be able, where we will be able to…
to address yung legal impediments, doon ho kami pumupunta para lang ho wag
kami ma-technical nga. Kaya nga ho kami ang disappointment namin how can we
go to the presentation of evidence kung dito palang na-stop na tayo? Yung
weakness and strength ng evidences namin, that can be subjected to
presentation and cross examination ho. Pero in most cases, yun ho ang
kalungkutan natin, ang nangyayari hindi na ho tayo nagpupunta sa kuwan… kaya
walang nakukulong ng matagal. So yun ho ang iniiwasan namin and maganda ito.
Si… Honorable Casiño, hindi ho kami nagpunta para… hindi naman ho
kami nag-away. This is a professional legal battle that we are conducting. Hindi
ho dapat…yun ho ang in-iemphasize ko dito. Kami we are doing case based on
the legal limitations.
Atty. Verano sent the unsigned Order of Release to Secretary Gonzalez
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Chairman
Remarks of the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Janet, natatandaan
mo ba kung kelan mo tinanggap yung envelope na galing kay Atty. Verano?
MS. JANETTE PAYOYO (Secretary of Usec. Ricardo Blancaflor, Department
of Justice). Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA. Kelan?
MS. PAYOYO. December 23 po.
REP. BARZAGA. Twenty three. Maalala mo ba kung anong oras, more or
less?
MS. PAYOYO. Morning, sir, mga between 10:00 to 11:00.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. And I assume that you follow the normal office
procedure na yung envelope or communications na tinatanggap nyo nire-record
nyo o nilo-log.
MS. PAYOYO. Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA. Was this entered to your log book?
MS. PAYOYO. Received from Atty. Verano, and then for Secretary Raul
Gonzales, thru Usec Blancaflor tapos may ano pa s’ya sir, sealed envelope.
REP. BARZAGA. Did you open the sealed envelope?
MS. PAYOYO. Come again, sir?
REP. BARZAGA. Binuksan mo ba yung sealed envelope?
MS. PAYOYO. Sir, after I received the envelope tinawag ko po yun kay
Usec. Blancaflor since he’s out of town. Tapos I asked for guidance kung anong
gagawin ko sa envelope. Tapos ang tanong sa akin ni sir…in-inform ko si Usec. na,
“Sir may natanggap tayong sealed envelope from Atty. Verano”.
REP. BARZAGA. Anong sagot ni Usec Blancaflor sa ‘yong inquiry?
MS. PAYOYO. Sabi ni Usec Blancaflor. “Why don’t you call… ay… “Ano yan”
sabi nya, sir? Sabi ko “Sir, naka-seal”. Tapos, “Why don’t you call Atty. Verano and
ask ano yan?” So yun po ang ginawa ko, sir.
REP. BARZAGA. Tinawagan mo si Atty. Verano?
MS. PAYOYO. Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA. Before that, have you ever called Atty. Verano?
MS. PAYOYO. Hindi po, sir
REP. BARZAGA. Paano mo nalaman ang kanyang number? Binigay ba sa
iyo ni Usec. Blancaflor?
MS. PAYOYO. No, sir.
REP. BARZAGA. How did you get it?
MS. PAYOYO. Sa office po kasi namin, sir, lahat ng mga calling cards or
mga taong na-meet ni Usec. Blancaflor before pa nag-umpisa sa public service…
REP. BARZAGA. Sa madali’t sabi merong…
MS. PAYOYO. May database po kami, sir.
REP. BARZAGA… calling card si Usec… si Atty. Verano sa inyong opisina?
MS. PAYOYO. Sa database namin sir, mayroon.
REP. BARZAGA. Sa database n’yo?
MS. PAYOYO. Opo
REP. BARZAGA. And you called him, tinawagan mo siya.
MS. PAYOYO. Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA. Anong itinanong mo o sinabi kay Atty. Verano?
MS. PAYOYO. Sir i-che-check ko lang po kung ano itong ipinadala nyong
document kay Usec Blancaflor.
REP. BARZAGA. Ano ang sagot nya?
MS. PAYOYO. Sabi po nya, “ah makikisuyo lang sana ako sa office n’yo na
pakidala yan kay Secretary, anyway,nag-usap na kami tungkol dyan.”
REP. BARZAGA. Sino ang nag-usap na?
MS. PAYOYO. Sina Secretary Gonzalez at Atty. Verano, per Atty. Verano,
sir.
REP. BARZAGA. And that was the end of your conversation with Atty.
Verano?
MS. PAYOYO. Not yet, sir.
REP. BARZAGA. Not yet, o, ano pang pinag-usapan ninyo?
MS. PAYOYO. After, sir, ng ganoon ang sinabi nya, finidback ko po ulit kay
Usec. Blancaflor.
REP. BARZAGA. Ano ang sabi mo kay Usec. Blancaflor?
MS. PAYOYO. Sir, nakikisuyo lang daw po si Atty. Verano sa office natin na
kung puwedeng dalhin natin iyong document na ito, iyong sealed envelope,
anyway nag-usap na rin sila ni Usec… ah ni Secretary Gonzalez about it.
REP. BARZAGA. And what was the instruction of Usec. Blancaflor to you
when you made that inquiry, second inquiry?
MS. PAYOYO. Opo. Ang sabi po nya, “ Ano ba iyan?” Sir, naka seal po eh. So
sabi nya, in- authorize po ako ni Usec to open the sealed envelope, so in-open ko
po…
REP. BARZAGA. At binasa mo?
MS. PAYOYO. Sinabi ko po. Ano yan? Sir, order. Order? Tungkol sa PDEA?
Ganoon sir.
REP. BARZAGA. How many pages?
MS. PAYOYO. Pages? Parang… sir, isa lang ata yong…
REP. BARZAGA. Pinag-uusapan natin kanina yung memorandum…
Department Order No. 46, Automatic Review at pinag- uusapan din natin kanina
iyong sinasabi nating Order of Release. Iyon bang dokumentong binasa mo, iyon
ba ay Order Release or is that a decision or order of the Secretary of Justice
sustaining the findings of the prosecutors regarding the dismissal of the case?
Kasi may pagkakaiba yung Order of Release as compared to the order regarding
the Automatic Review sustaining the Order of…
MS. PAYOYO. Sir, basta ang natatandaan ko lang kasi noong tinanong ni
Usec. Blancaflor kung ano iyong content, sinabi ko lang po, sir, na may order
kasing nakalagay, sir, so yun lang po ang sinabi ko kay Usec and then the title
case. That’s all. Hindi ko po kasi binasa.
REP. BARZAGA. Hindi mo binasa. So ano ang ginawa mo?
MS. PAYOYO. Ang instruction ni Usec. Blancaflor, “O sige, sige, sabihin mo
or find out kung sino ang prosecutor handling that case and then itanong mo sa
kanya kung okay iyan, then bago mo ibigay sa office ni Secretary” iyon po ang
instruction sa akin ni Usec. Blancaflor. Ang ginawa ko po, sir, hinanap ko po sa
DOJ kung sino yung fiscal handling that case. So I found out nga na si Prosecutor
Rasada iyong… ay, sorry, sorry. I’m sorry, sir.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay, relax.
MS. PAYOYO. Na si Prosecutor Resado nga po iyong nagha-handle ng case.
Tapos noong tinawagan ko iyong secretary ni Prosecutor Resado wala pa po siya
sa office niya, so ni-request ko iyong cellphone number ni Prosecutor and
nakausap ko nga po si Prosecutor. Ang sabi ko nga po kay sir, kay Prosecutor
Resado, “Sir, iche-check lang po namin kasi may nakikisuyo dito sa office namin
na kung okay ba itong papel na dalhin kay Secretary kasi kino-course through
kay Usec. Blancaflor?” and then pinabasa po ni Prosecutor Resado, sir. So binasa
ko sa kanya. And then… over the phone, sir, ha kasi he was still in his way to the
office. Tapos nag-okay naman po siya na puwede daw dalhin kay Secretary. So
pagkatapos po naming nag-usap ni Prosecutor Resado, dinala ko na po doon sa
office ni Secretary at ang nag received po iyong… ibinigay ko doon sa Executive
Assistant niya. Ang sabi ko po, “Ate, ate Janine, ibibigay ko lang itong documents
from Atty. Verano. May usapan na yata sila ni DOJ tungkol dito.” Then, she
received it kaya po nakarating sa office ng Secretary iyong document.
REP. BARZAGA. Ang sabi sa… ni Secretary Gonzalez as reflected… as
stated in the newspapers today, mali raw ang pagkaka-spell ng kanyang
apelyido, instead of “z” it was an “s”.
MS. PAYOYO. Saan po, sir?
REP. BARZAGA. Doon sa kanyang… doon mismo sa Order na iyon. Is that
correct?
MS. PAYOYO. Hindi ko po alam, sir. Hindi ko po napansin.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, just one question to the Prosecutor Resado.
Noong basahin sa iyo ni Janette iyong draft ng Order, is it (a) draft
sustaining your decision or it’s simply a draft ordering the release or both?
MR. RESADO. That was a draft ordering the release pending automatic
review. So kinonsult ako kung tama ba iyong pagkakasabi sa statement. Sabi ko
mukhang okay naman, so kung ganyan ang usapan ninyo…
REP. BARZAGA. So, in other words, ang ating pinag-uusapan ngayon
mayroong Order na ginawa si Atty. Verano, inire-release ang kanyang mga
kliyente while your finding is still the subject of automatic review. Is that
correct?
MR. RESADO. Yes, sir. But I don’t know that it was drafted by anyone. I
have no idea.
REP. BARZAGA. Noon bang mag-kausap kayo ni Janete hindi mo tinanong
kay Janette kung saan niya kinukuha iyong order na binabasa sa iyo?
MR. RESADO. Not anymore, sir, because our conversation was very fast. I
was driving going to the office at that time.
REP. BARZAGA. Can you present a copy of that Order to this Court… ah, to
this Committee?
Remarks of Congressman Zialcita
REP. BARZAGA. Okay.
Remarks of Congressman Zialcita
REP. BARZAGA. Yes. But our inquiry is that the Order was prepared by a
lawyer.
Remarks of Congressman Zialcita
REP. BARZAGA. Yes, we understand, just one last point. Janette, gaano
katagal ka na sa Department of Justice?
MS. PAYOYO. September 2007, sir.
REP. BARZAGA. September 2007. Sino ang nauna sa inyo, si Usec.
Blancaflor o ikaw?
MS. PAYOYO. Nauna lang po siya ng ilang araw, sir, and then sumunod
ako.
REP. BARZAGA. Were you brought to DOJ by Secretary Blancaflor?
MS. PAYOYO. Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA. Did you have any employment prior… with Usec.
Blancaflor prior to the time that you were connected to DOJ?
MS. PAYOYO. Sir, I was employed at the Department of National Defense…
sorry, National Defense.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay, thank you.
The period prescribed on the waiver of detention is violated
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. Mr. Chairman, while there has been allegation here
made by Major Marcelino, na medyo mabilis ang pagkakadesisyon ninyo dito
Prosecutor Resado, well, do you still have the cases subject matter of preliminary
investigation which took place prior to September 2008? And which up to now is
still undecided by you as well as in the DOJ?
MR. RESADO. Marami po, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Bakit ninyo hindi kasing grabe nito hindi ninyo
nadedesisyunan samantalang ito, mabilis ang inyong desisyon.
MR. RESADO. This is an inquest case, Your Honor. In fact, this has been
delayed because the inquest was conducted on September (December) 21… and I
was able to finish my Resolution on December 2.
REP. BARZAGA. As (a) Prosecutor, is there any law or in any decision
rendered by the Supreme Court limiting the period of waiver of detention?
MR. RESADO. There is, the Rules of Court that provides that, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. What’s the Provision under the Rules of the Court?
MR. RESADO. That even though the accused submitted a waiver, the
investigation should only be terminated within 15 days.
REP. BARZAGA. Within 15 days. Were you able to terminate the
investigation within 15 days?
MR. RESADO. No, Your Honor. Because… (Interrupted)
REP. BARZAGA. So you violated the provision of the Rules of Court?
MR. RESADO. Not necessarily, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Because it’s not a mandatory provision, it is only a
directory provision. Yes? It is only directory, it is only permissive provision. And
therefore, even if you will not be able to terminate the period within 15 days and
as a matter of fact, in this particular case, hindi mo natapos sa 5 araw di ba?
Hindi mo natapos sa loob ng labing-limang araw hindi ba?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. So you don’t have to invoke that Rule because you
also violated that Rule.
MR. RESADO. We are trying to cope with that Rule, Your Honor. That is
why the case has been pending for more than 2 months that…because we studied
it very well, Your Honor. And the parties requested for extension, including
PDEA, Your Honor.
Resado did not believe that there was a buy-bust operation
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. So in other words, Mr. Prosecutor, you did not believe
that there was a buy-bust operation?
MR. RESADO. That is correct, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Because if you believe? That there has been a buy-bust
operation you would agree with the PDEA, that under the Rules of Court they can
apprehend the respondents?
MR. RESADO. That is correct, Your Honor
REP. BARZAGA. So, you did not believe them that there was a buy-bust
operation?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Did it occur to your mind what would be the motive of
this PDEA in filing false charges against these respondents? Hindi mo ba naisip
bakit naman… ano ang motibo ng PDEA na magagawa ng asunto na wala namang
buy-bust operation idedemanda itong mga taong ito?
Remarks of Congressman Cuenco
REP. BARZAGA. Bakit nila pini-frame-up?
MR. RESADO. I cannot fathom the minds of the PDEA people, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Would it be reasonable as Prosecutor… would it be
reasonable as Prosecutor whose primary objective is to administer justice na
dapat tinanong mo naman sa kanila, “Hindi ako naniniwalang meron kayong buybust. Bakit? Ano ba ang motibo nyo at papaylan (file) n’yo ng kaso itong mga ito?”
MR. RESADO. Your Honor, justice is for everyone. The duty of the
Prosecutor is to evaluate and assess evidence and to see to it that justice is done
both to the complaint, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. But you would consider that… this is a very peculiar case
because there has been allegations made in the newspapers that there were
attempts for bribery, and you did not exert extra diligence in so far as the
handling of this case is concerned. Basta ang sabi mo, “I do not believe you that
there has been a buy bust operation.” Is that correct?
MR. RESADO. Your Honor, please, all the allegations of bribery came after
the resolution was issued. In the entire period of the preliminary investigation
there is none, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. I’m cautioning you. I read the newspaper articles which
were published prior to your resolution at ang sabi… kuha nong December 2,
meron nang allegation ng bribery. Ang sabi mo nga kanina narinig mo yun. So,
you cannot claim right now na itong allegations sa bribery ay lumabas lamang
pagkatapos ng iyong December 2 resolution. As early as September and October.
MR. RESADO. I would like to clarify Your Honor that bribery of 50Million
appeared in the newspapers after the Resolution was issued…
REP. BARZAGA. What about the bribery of 20 million?
MR. RESADO. I don’t know that, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. You don’t know that?
MR. RESADO. Yes. It was on record. I only came to my… it came to my
knowledge the amount of three million when I was conducting a buy-bust
operation.
I was conducting the inquest proceedings, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And your inquest started as early as…?
MR. RESADO. September 21, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. 21. So noon pong September 21, more or less, within that
period you know already that three million?
MR. RESADO. Yes, I heard that, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. You heard that?
MR. RESADO. But it only pertains to the bribe offer to PDEA not to our
office.
REP. BARZAGA. You did not anticipate that there will be (a) bribe offer to
DOJ?
MR. RESADO. We did not, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. We did not?
MR. RESADO. Yes.
REP. BARZAGA. Although you know for a fact that the filing ruling will
come from your office, na kahit na ipa-dismiss ng PDEA ‘yan ultimately kayo ang
magdedesisyon nyan.
MR. RESADO. That is speculative. Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. What is speculative? Do you not agree… hindi ka ba… do
you not agree (with) me that the final ruling would come from your office and
not from PDEA?
MR. RESADO. I will want to answer in this way, Your Honor. The final
ruling is with us.
REP. BARZAGA. Yes.
MR. RESADO. How about if, just assuming, for the sake of the argument,
how about if the PDEA will deliberately sadyain nilang palpakin ‘yung
documents? (Voices howling)
REP. BARZAGA. Insofar as this case is concerned, do you have the
impression na sinadya ng PDEA na palpakin ang mga dokumento and because of
that, you did not believe that there was a buy-bust operation?
MR. RESADO. I do not have that impression, but based on the documents,
there are certain irregularities, Your Honor, which we cannot cure at our level.
HEARING ON JANUARY 7, 2009
Resolution is not executory pending the automatic review
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would address some questions to Secretary Gonzalez who happens to be
my co-professor during the Martial Law years. Well, this would be policy
questions. First and foremost would be the issue of release. We are very much
aware about this Department Circular No. 46 providing for automatic review.
However, during our inquiry yesterday, the prosecutors from the Department of
Justice are citing a Manual for Prosecutors stating that if there is already a
resolution for dismissal by the virtue of that resolution of dismissal, the suspects
are entitled, as a matter of right, to be released. And our inquiry would be, what
would be the matter, what would happen to this automatic review in the event
that the Secretary of Justice would overturn the order of the dismissal and
therefore, we want to be clarified. What is the policy of the Secretary of Justice in
cases like this? If the case is subject to automatic review and there has been an
order of dismissal coming from the prosecutor which order of dismissal is the
subject of automatic review, will the suspects in this particular case be entitled to
be released in the meantime?
MR. RAUL GONZALEZ (Secretary, Department of Justice): My position,
Your Honor, is no because then it will render nugatory the automatic review
itself. As you premised your statement, you said that what will happen if the
Secretary of Justice will overturn the resolution? Maybe some prosecutors may
think that they can release. If their resolution is overturned, you can’t just rearrest the respondents again. But there will be difficulty there because the
respondents may no longer be around after that. And I believe that the meaning
of the automatic review goes deep into the power of supervision and control in
the Secretary over prosecutors – that the Secretary can overturn prosecutors’
resolutions. And technically, therefore, the resolution in favor of the respondent
is not yet executory pending the review by the Secretary of Justice.
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you very much for that clarification, Mr. Secretary.
Well, I have read in the newspapers and heard also over the radios that a
Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed by the counsel of the respondents before
the Court of Appeals. Do you affirm that, Attorney Verano?
Petition for habeas corpus is premature
MR. FELISBERTO VERANO, JR. (Counsel for Respondents): Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, my inquiry would be regarding the possible legal
consequences where the public might be surprised.
Number one, in the event that the Court of Appeals should grant your
petition, meaning to say ordering the release of the respondents while there has
been no final resolution against the automatic review, what would be the action
of the PDEA? Because I am certain that the respondents would be the PDEA in
your Habeas Corpus not the DOJ.
MR. VERANO: That is correct, sir. We have a situation here of which is
higher, the law or…
REP. BARZAGA: I am addressing the question to the PDEA. In the event
that the PDEA would be ordered by the Court of Appeals to release the
respondents in spite of the fact that the DOJ, our Secretary of Justice has not yet
made a ruling regarding that automatic review.
MR. ALVARO BERNABE LAZARO (Head, Legal Prosecution Service,
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency): Well, in that case, sir, we will be
constrained to file a Motion for Reconsideration or an appeal because we do
believe that on our part, that petition for Habeas Corpus is premature because
they have not exhausted the available remedies allowed under the law. As
correctly pointed out by no less than by the Secretary of Justice, we stood our
ground because we do believe that we are holding the persons of respondents
not in a whimsical manner, not in a capricious manner but we want us to have a
complete process of the said automatic review process. We have situations even
in our regional offices when cases were dismissed, the respondents were
ordered release, the dismissal were automatically reviewed and then the
resolution was reversed, the respondents were nowhere to be found. This is a
case of heinous crime, an unbailable offense and not a simple offense, sir. That is
our position.
REP. BARZAGA: That would be all, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary.
The Order of Release was issued prior to the expiration of the 36-hour
period
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Well, I’ll verify, I’ll verify some data.
Well, number one, when would the period of 36 hours expire considering
that it is a buy-bust operation and therefore it is a case of selling and therefore
the penalty is reclusion perpetua?
MR. MARCELINO: Kanina po sanang 9:35 ng umaga, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: 9:35. When was the order of release issued?
MR. MARCELINO: Natanggap po namin kanina, sir, bago po kami pumunta
dito. Sir, eh, mga, anong oras, 8:00 po yata yun, sir, mga 8:00 or 7:00 ng umaga
kanina, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: So it was received by the PDEA even before 9:30 in the
morning.
MR. MARCELINO: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And therefore, under the proper…under this factual
situation, the 36 hours have not yet expired.
MR. MARCELINO: Yes, sir. In fact nga po, sir, papunta pa lang po doon
yung tropa namin for the…dala yung suspect, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Another question. What is the date of the order? Is it
dated today or yesterday?
MR. MARCELINO: Hindi ko po nakita yung date, sir, hindi napansin, pero
may dala po yata si Attorney Lazaro, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And what is the name of the fiscal?
MR. MARCELINO: Nandito po, sir, may dalang file si ano, sir.
Remarks of Congressman Zialcita
REP. BARZAGA: Well, actually, that’s the problem. According to
Congressman Golez, the basic would be common sense. Eh kung papunta na roon
sa PDE…papunta na roon sa Fiscal’s Office, na-trapik, mag-e-expire ng 9:30, pero
sinabi namang papunta na roon at padating na, kahit na i-file mo iyan ng 10:30,
11 o’clock, that would be permitted by our courts…
Remarks of Congressman Zialcita
REP. BARZAGA: …kasi there are cases decided by the Supreme Court na
kahit na lampas na sa reglementary period, as long as there are compelling and
justifiable reasons, it would be accepted even he filed (it) out of time.
MR. MARCELINO: Sir, eto po, sir, January 6 ang nakatatak dito, sir, January
6, 2009, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: So yesterday.
MR. MARCELINO: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: So, it was…ah, the ground is that there will be arbitrary
detention, but it was even dismissed…
MR. MARCELINO: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: …prior to the expiration of the 36…
Remarks of Congressman Zialcita
REP. BARZAGA: …36 hours period.
NBI would include DOJ and PDEA in the investigation
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: I’ll request some clarificatory questioning to my good
friend, Director Mangantaring. Firstly, I have been reading in the papers that an
internal investigation was order by (the) Secretary of Justice and many are
asking me – what does internal investigation mean?
MR. NESTOR MANTARING (Director, NBI): I suppose, Your Honor, that
internal investigation was conducted within the DOJ proper.
REP. BARZAGA: Within the DOJ proper?
MR. MANTARING: Although the instruction of the Secretary is to include
the prosecutors and the PDEA people in their investigation, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, I don’t want to say this but I have been receiving the
comments that in this particular case, the National Bureau of Investigation would
not be an impartial body to conduct this investigation since there are DOJ people
who would be the subject of your investigation. As a matter of fact, a while ago
you mentioned that no less than Usec. Blancaflor has submitted an affidavit and
therefore, he is part of the persons to be investigated. And I think, you would
admit that Usec. Blancaflor being an Undersecretary of the Department of Justice
would be a superior of the Director of the National Bureau and Investigation.
MR. MANTARING: If, Your Honor, please, may I correct the impression.
Because the one who gave the statement is the Secretary of the Undersecretary,
Undersecretary Blancaflor, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Do you intend to include in your investigation the
statements of Undersecretary Blancaflor or would you require him to submit any
document?
MR. MANTARING: As part of the investigation, Your Honor, he will be
interviewed.
REP. BARZAGA: And also you will be interviewing PDEA people.
MR. MANTARING: Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Insofar as the bribery is concerned? And do you think
that the public perception is that you would be an impartial investigator insofar
as these circumstances are concerned?
MR. MANTARING: We will be very impartial, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Because our perception is that if it is only an internal
investigation, the investigation would be limited only to employees or personnel
connected with the Department of Justice.
MR. MANTARING: If, Your Honor, please. As I have said earlier, I believe
the internal investigation that the Secretary was telling is an internal…is an
investigation to be conducted by people within the DOJ, Your Honor, DOJ only,
Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: But you would be including in your investigation people
who are not connected with the DOJ.
MR. MANTARING: Yes, Your Honor.
Jan. 5 DOJ Sec. Circular: No release of resolutions during automatic reviews
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Well, Secretary Gonzalez was present this morning and I
asked him his position regarding this automatic review and he categorically
stated twice during my interpellation as well as in the interpellation of
Congressman Casiño, that in cases wherein there is an order of dismissal by (a)
DOJ Prosecutor in crimes involving smuggling and violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act and the imposable penalty is five years or more, even if there is an
order of dismissal issued by the prosecutor, the respondents should not be
released unless the automatic review has been completed. And of course, there
would be only release if the Secretary of Justice, after conducting the automatic
review, would sustain the order or resolution of dismissal. What can you say
about this statement of Secretary Gonzalez in order that we could be clarified on
this issue?
MR. JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO (Chief State Prosecutor, National Prosecution
Service, Department of Justice): The automatic review applies to cases where the
prosecutor conducted a regular preliminary investigation. When we say regular
preliminary investigation, that is, the case is resolved supposed to be within 60
days unless the counsel files pleadings that would extend the 60-day period. That
these cases are endorsed to the Office of the Secretary for automatic review.
REP. BARZAGA: So in other words, that statement of Secretary Gonzalez
with (us) this morning is not accurate?
MR. ZUÑO: Well, sir, after this case we had a circular…the Secretary issued
a circular dated January 5, that all…all cases will now…will have to reviewed by
the Office of the Secretary dated January…while there is an ongoing automatic
review there will be no release of resolutions.
REP. BARZAGA: Will that circular issued only recently had retroactive
application?
MR. ZUÑO: I believe it doesn’t have any retroactive application, Your
Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: So, it will be a correct legal statement right now that
insofar as the Prosecution Office of the DOJ is concerned, your position is that,
the respondents which (have) been the subject of this inquiry so badly released
per the policy of the Department of Justice?
MR. ZUÑO: Well, because of the intervening events, the Secretary did not
sign any release order.
REP. BARZAGA: So, your position is that, in spite of the order of
dismissal…the resolution of dismissal, considering that there is automatic
review, the respondents should not be released.
MR. ZUÑO: That is not the stand even by the Secretary of Justice.
REP. BARZAGA: If you will be required by the Court of Appeals to make
their…to make your comment on the petition for habeas corpus, will you be
making the same answer that they are not entitled to the release?
MR. ZUÑO: Your Honor, we will just make a manifestation that our
resolution will speak for itself.
Zuño: PDEA and Prosecutors could be charged with arbitrary detention
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: May I have some follow-up? For how long have you been
the head of the National Prosecution Office?
MR. ZUÑO: As Chief State Prosecutor, I think about 14 or 15 years, Your
Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Fourteen (14) or 15 years. And right now, you are telling
us officially that you have sound…some doubts regarding the legality of this
Department Circular No. 46 issued on June 26, 2003. As a matter of fact, you
stated that you even run the risk of being charged for arbitrary detention insofar
as the application of this Department Circular No. 46 is concerned. My question
is, did you officially bring to the attention of the Secretary of Justice your doubt
about the legality of this Department Circular Number…considering your fear
and apprehension that your prosecutors may be charged for arbitrary detention?
MR. ZUÑO: Yes, Your Honor. I…I even discuss this particular point with
the Secretary but with the Department Circular, we comply with the Department
Circular. But that is just side…just my side comment, Your Honor. That we will
really run the risk of being charged for arbitrary detention. Pag nakatapat…pag
nakatapat po kami ng abogado na medyo ma…meticulous I…I can be
charged…we can be charged for arbitrary detention. Sapagkat andoon na
yung…bakit naka-detained pa itong tao for so many days or so many weeks eh
wala pang resolution.
Interpellation of Congressman Golez and Responses of Mr. Zuño
REP. BARZAGA: I’ll just follow-up my question. Well, we are actually
talking…we are actually talking or discussing the issue of arbitrary detention.
And as far as I can recall, when we speak of arbitrary detention under Article 125
of the Revised Penal Code, there is a deprivation of the liberty of a particular
individual.
MR. ZUÑO: Without legal basis.
REP. BARZAGA: You admit, okay. In these cases, will the DOJ Prosecutors
be the one to be charged for arbitrary detention or will it be the apprehending
authority who exercises custody over the respondents such as PDEA who will be
liable for arbitrary detention, will it be John Resado who will be charged for
arbitrary detention or will it be the PDEA people?
MR. ZUÑO: Your Honor, it could be both PDEA and Prosecutors.
Before January 5, respondents are released upon the issuance of the
Resolution of Dismissal
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Mr. Chairman, for clarification. Very simple.
So, sa madaling sabi, basta Order of Dismissal, and Resolu…ah, basta
Resolution of Dismissal ang ginawa ng DOJ Prosecutor regardless of whether the
case is subject to automatic review, your policy is release lahat itong mga nakadetain?
MR. RESADO: Not necessarily po. Ah, basta ang nakalagay, ‘yung irerelease namin po…
REP. BARZAGA: Hindi, hindi. Ang pinag-uusapan natin…Okay. Meron
tayong Resolution…Sa madaling sabi, ang policy n’yo, basta meron kayong
Resolution of Dismissal, no probable cause, ang policy n’yo, ipa-release lahat ng
mga naka-detain even if the case is subject to automatic review of the Secretary
of Justice, even if the case happens to be a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
even if the case is a case of smuggling and the penalty is more than five years.
MR. RESADO: Yes, Your Honor, please. Before January 5, ginagawa po
naming niyan, nire-release talaga.
Interpellation of Congressman Golez and Responses of Mr. Resado
REP. BARZAGA: Just a follow-up. Okay. Well, you have invited our
attention to this paragraph, “The entire record of the case shall be elevated to the
reviewing authority concerned within three (3) days from the issuance of the
resolution dismissing the complaint or appeal, as applicable.”
My question is, is your interpretation that the phrase “issuance of the
resolution”, the same as release of the resolution?
MR. RESADO: Your Honor, please, may I refer the question to my
immediate superior, Assistant Chief State Prosecutor…
REP. BARZAGA: Well, do you mean to say that you don’t know the
procedure regarding the cases which is being handled by you for preliminary
investigation? Hindi mo alam ang procedure?
Remarks of Congressman Golez
MR. RESADO: I know the procedure…
Remarks of Congressman Golez
MR. RESADO: Yes, Your Honor.
Remarks of Congressman Golez
MR. RESADO: Yes, Your Honor. In all honesty, this is our interpretation
and the same interpretation of all the prosecutors before January 5, 2009
because the word “issuance” there would refer that a resolution was issued.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Just one question. Well, you were (here) this
morning when clarification was made with Secretary Gonzalez. And as far as I
can recall, the statement of Secretary Gonzalez is to the effect that that resolution
– referring to the resolution of dismissal – should had not been released in the
first place. “It should be cleared to my office in order not to create false hopes to
the respondents.” Would you agree with this statement of mine that that was
substantially the statement of Secretary Gonzalez? So, you would agree, with me
that even Secretary Gonzalez said, sinabi ni Secretary Gonzalez na iyong
resolution mo hindi mo dapat ini-release because there is a policy in the
Department of Justice?
MR. RESADO: Your Honor, please.
MR. LAZARO: Your Honor, Your Honor.
MR. RESADO: Iyan na po ang naging kalakaran before po itong lumaki ang
isyu sa Circular 46. Ganoon po ang kalakaran.
REP. BARZAGA: So sa madaling sabi, kahit na mayroong ganoong policy si
Secretary Gonzalez, hindi ninyo sinusunod sa Department of Justice sapagkat
iyon ang kalakaran na sinasabi mo. And that’s why we are a little bit confused
here kung ano talaga ang inyong proper procedure.
MR. LAZARO: Your Honor.
MR. RESADO: Your Honor, please…
MR. LAZARO: Your Honor…
REP. BARZAGA: Can we allow him to complete his answer?
MR. LAZARO: Yes, sir.
MR. RESADO: Just like I said a while ago, Your Honor, that was our
interpretation before this issue of Circular 46 was brought out in the open. Iyon
po ang naging kalakaran ng…
MR. LAZARO: Your Honor, we at PDEA, we really want to be very, very
careful about the interpretation of RA 9165 and related issuances thereunder.
Number one, Your Honor, I think PDEA had done its assignment because
sometime on April 9, 2008, and later on I will distribute our letter, we wrote a
letter addressed to the Honorable Raul M. Gonzalez, Secretary, through the Office
of Honorable Jovencito R. Zuño and Honorable Philip I. Kimpo, particularly
inquiring or asking for a legal opinion regarding the applicability of Memo
Circular 46 because we encountered cases, especially in Region II, wherein
cases…wherein respondents were arrested, their cases dismissed or their release
on review, automatically reverse and refile the information. Now, the
respondents were scot-free. Until now they are hiding in hell.
Order of Release was not incorporated in previous Resolutions of Dismissal
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Just a follow-up to the statement of Attorney Lazaro. In
the cases which were mentioned a while ago particularly the resolutions of
dismissal, do the resolutions of dismissal provide that the respondents should be
released immediately from the custody of PDEA?
MR. LAZARO: None, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: So in other words, there is no resolu…there is no portion
pertaining to the release?
MR. LAZARO: Yes, sir. And in addition to that, my personal view or official
position of the matter with respect to the statements made by Prosecutior
Resado…Resado as if we are now, in effect, encroaching on the authority or the
discretion vested in the person of the Secretary of Justice once we effect the
release and then the case goes under automatic review.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. While in this particular case, insofar as the
resolution of dismissal is concerned in this particular case, specifically there is an
order of release.
MR. LAZARO: Yes, in this particular case, in the present case, the directive
to release was incorporated…is incorporated in the resolution itself.
REP. BARZAGA: Was (the) incorporation of the order of that portion
pertaining to the release usual insofar as resolutions of dismissal made by the
DOJ Prosecutors are concerned?
MR. LAZARO: I think that is unusual, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: That is unusual?
MR. LAZARO: Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Would you be able to present to us copies of the
resolutions issued by the DOJ dismissing a particular case without any portion
providing for the release of the respondents?
MR. LAZARO: I even cited one case resolved no less than by State
Prosecutor Archimedes Manabat, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Can you furnish us a copy of that resolution?
MR. LAZARO: Yes, Your Honor, yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: How soon?
MR. LAZARO: Right now, Your Honor, after this. Right now.
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you very much.
HEARING ON JANUARY 23, 2009
Resado: Not waiving right under RA 1405 (Secrecy of Bank Deposits)
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, Prosecutor Resado, a while ago you read the deposits in your bank
accounts. My question is – based on the accounts…bank…the passbooks, which
became the basis of your deposits, are there withdrawals also in your deposits?
MR. RESADO: Opo, Your Honor, may withdrawals din po dahil patuloy nga
po kaming nag-i-invest.
REP. BARZAGA: Could we place on records the withdrawals in your bank
deposits as reflected in the passbooks which you relies upon in reading the
deposits?
MR. RESADO: Okay po, babasahin ko pong…
Remarks by Congressmen Cuenco and the Chairman
Interpellation of Congressmen Golez and J. C. Lopez
REP. BARZAGA: Mr. Chair, there is a pending request coming from this
representation. For Mr. Resado to tell orally, to tell us the withdrawals as well as
the balance after each withdrawal as reflected in his bank book in order that we
could have a complete picture of his bank accounts because what we heard only
(are) the deposits.
MR. RESADO: Ito po, Your Honor, babanggitin ko lang po iyung mga
malaking withdrawals na based on dates.
REP. BARZAGA: Together with the running balance after each withdrawal,
please.
MR. RESADO: Opo, Your Honor.
Noon pong October 23, 2001, nagkaroon ng withdrawal na 10,000, may
natirang balance na 11,000; noong December 10, 2001, mayroong withdrawal na
10,000, mayroong natirang balance na 5,769; noong April 1, 2002, may
withdrawal na 150,000 pero may pumasok na 300 kaya may balance na
tiring…mayroon pa ring 356,000; noong April 4, 2002, withdrawal 30,000,
balance 326,159; April 11, 2002, may dalawang withdrawal na 175,000,
dalawang 175,000 na withdrawal at ang natirang balance ay 26,159. Noong May
10, 2002, mayroong withdrawal na 10,000, may natirang 20,366; withdrawal
again, June 7, 2002, 12,000, remaining balance, 20,516; withdrawal, 10,000, July
22, 2002, balance, 50,529. So, mapapansin po bakit may withdrawal na malaki,
kasi po may kasabay ding deposit na magkasunod.
August 8, 2002, withdrawal, 10,000, balance 54,411; Sepetmber 27, 2002,
withdrawal, 10,000, balance 44,446; October 22, 2002, withdrawal 85,000,
balance, 10,919; January 6, 2003, withdrawal, 10,000, balance 5,962; January
10,2003, withdrawal 50,000, balance, 5,962; April 24, 2003, withdrawal, 10,000,
balance 972 pesos; October 20, 2003, withdrawal, 9,000, balance 1,223;
November 5, 2003, withdrawal, 10,000, balance 949.
Remarks of Congressman Crisologo
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Would you be willing to submit that xerox copies?
MR. RESADO: Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay.
Remarks of Congressman Crisologo
REP. BARZAGA: I’ll follow-up. Well, you stated a while ago that although
you are disclosing right now the history of your bank deposits, the withdrawals,
the deposits as well as the current balance, you are not waiving your right under
Republic Act 1405, The Secrecy of Bank Deposits, will that be correct?
So, as a lawyer, the legal effect is that we will not be able to confirm the
accuracy , the truthfulness of what you have stated right now regarding the bank
deposits, the withdrawals of yours, inasmuch as we would not be able to have
access to your bank records. Will you agree with that, Mr. Chairman?
MR. RESADO: Sa tingin ko po, baka hindi.
REP. BARZAGA: Kaya hindi naming mako-confirm kung tama o mali ang
mga sinasabi mong deposito, kung tama o mali, o falsified ang inyong bank
deposit book right now because we will not be having access to your bank
deposits as mandated under Republic Act 1405. Will that be correct?
MR. RESADO: Opo, Your Honor, pero po these are all original, Your Honor,
and existing. So, bakit po kailangan pa nating i-tamper samanatalang original po
ito?
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Would you be willing to subpoena the bank
employee or bank official to attest that that is (an) original and faithful
reproduction of the records in their bank in order to prove the accuracy and
truthfulness of the information which you have provided to us right now?
MR. RESADO: Opo, Your Honor. Certification lamang na accurate lahat ang
laman nito base sa isine-xerox ninyo. Pero hindi ko po iwe-waive ang aking
karapatan sa secrecy pero boluntaryo ko nga po pinapakita ang original na lahat
ng aking passbook.
Resado did not verify the source of the account information from the bank
REP. BARZAGA: Just one point, Mr. Chair, so that other might (be able) to
ask.
When was the first time that you came to know about this anonymous
letter imputing allegations pertaining to your deposits on December 2, 2008?
MR. RESADO: Kung hindi po ako nagkakamali, siguro Wednesday po, kasi
tumawag sa akin si Ces Drilon at tumawag din pos a akin ang kaopisina ko, nademoralize daw silang lahat dahil may narinig sila sa inter…nabasa sa internet na
lumabas na ganoong issue. Sabi ko, ipapaliwanag ko po iyan, huwag kayong magalala dahil kumpleto po kako ang aking listahan.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. What about you, how did you feel upon hearing
these …upon knowing these anonymous letters, most especially these allegations
regarding the 800,000 pesos or 1.6?
MR. RESADO: Aaminin ko po na sobrang sama ng loob ko dahil private na
buhay ko na po ito, pinaghirapan naman naming iyung…kung ano ang laman nito
tapos bakit pati iyun pinakialaman.
Pangalawa po, sumama din ang loob ko, siempre, sa bangko na
pinagkatiwalaan ko nang matagal. Galing kami sa Quezon City, Banco De Oro,
loyalty, pagdating sa Cavite, Banco De Oro pa rin. Kahit dollar account naming,
Banco De Oro pa rin. Bakit nila inilabas nang ganito at bakit sila may
empleyadong ganoong uri ng empleyado na hindi man lang nirespeto iyung
privacy naming sa aming bank account?
REP. BARZAGA: And because of that, according to you, Mr. Chair, you will
be even…you even intend to file a case against the bank employees?
MR. RESADO: Kapag napatunayan po sa imbestigasyon kung sino iyung
empleyado, willing po akong sampahan sapagkat viniolate n’ya po ang aking
karapatan.
REP. BARZAGA: And as a lawyer and as a seasoned prosecutor, your
immediate reaction or conclusion is that this information must have come from
the employees of the bank. Will that be correct?
MR. RESADO: Posible po. Yun ang aking inisip kaagad.
REP. BARZAGA: From the time that you came to know about this
anonymous letter up to the present, did you call the bank manager where your
funds are deposited to inquire or to explain, how this information came about to
the public?
MR. RESADO: Hindi pa po, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Hindi pa. And up to now you have not sent any letter
demanding from the bank any explanation (on) how this information leaked out?
MR. RESADO: Tama po yun, Your Honor. Kasi nung lumabas po itong
balita sa account, hindi nap o ako matulog, hindi makakain. Nag-concentrate po
ako kung papano ipaliwanag ito sapagkat alam ko na legal naman po.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. But as a lawyer and as a reasonable person, would
you agree with me that prudence dictates under these circumstances that your
normal reaction would be to ask the bank employees and the bank managers
how this information came about, most especially your statement that even the
employees at DOJ are being demoralized by this information?
MR. RESADO: Yan po ang aking gagawin sa pagdating po ng linggong ito,
Your Honor, po.
REP. BARZAGA: I think that would be all, Mr. Chair.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Well, number one, Mr. Chairman, just a motion.
Prosecutor Resado a while ago stated his willingness to have the bank
books Xeroxed. I now formally move that Prosecutor Resado be required to
furnish all the bank books to the Com Sec in order that the Com Sec can cause the
Xeroxing of those bank deposits.
Seconded by Congressman Crisologo
REP. BARZAGA: And just one follow-up.
Prosecutor Resado, following up the inquiry of Congressman Golez, would
you be able to submit the list of vendors or the list of borrowers whose
contributions or payments constitute that 800,000 pesos?
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Just a follow-up. Well, as a lawyer, Prosecutor Resado,
you know that when we waive a particular right we can impose conditions. As a
matter of…in fact, that is a matter of common practice, Deed of Release with
Waiver of Rights. You are authorizing the waiving of your rights of the secrecy of
your bank account without prejudice to your right to file appropriate cases
against the bank employees who have violated the secret law…the Secrecy Laws.
And that is expressly permitted under our legal jurisprudence. How would you
comment on that?
Remarks of Congressman J. C. Lopez
MR. RESADO: Your Honor, I believe in that kind of conditional waiver may
not be applicable in our laws. That, that is why this is not my expertise. I really
need to be safe in my actions because, as much as I wanted to, andito na nga po
lahat ng original passbook, kaya lang baka mawalan po ako ng karapatan, yun
ang aking gusting proteksiyunan po.
REP. BARZAGA: Just a follow-up.
Remarks of Congressman J. C. Lopez
REP. BARZAGA: Well, will it be a correct impression that the reason why
you do not want to waive your rights regarding the secrecy of your bank deposit
is that if there would be a waiver, it would result to the discovery of evidence
which might be adverse against you?
MR. RESADO: Not necessarily, Your Honor, hindi naman po ganun. Kasi po
you must remember po na this is a joint account. Meron pong private na tao na
hindi makatulog, hindi makakain. Umiiyak ng ilang linggo rito na huwag siyang
madamay. At yun nga pong pakiusap ko kung mag-present ako ng testigo rito na
kapamilya ko na huwag silang kuhanan ng video. Eh, lalo na po pag pinasilip ito,
lalabas ang mga pangalan nila baka pati sila ma…makuhaan ng video kapag nag…
REP. BARZAGA: But by waiving your right to does…to that deposit,
regarding this secrecy, it will really give the public a clear picture of the actual
situation and it will help eliminate whatever fear, apprehension or suspicion the
public may have against you and your wife. As a matter of fact, that waiver will
be an opportunity on your side to prove that indeed the amount of 800,000
pesos deposited came from valid and legitimate sources and would actually
contravert the speculation, the erroneous conclusion on the part of some people
that that is part of the bribe money.
MR. RESADO: Your Honor, kapag ang waiver ay na-confirm lamang nila
yung amount, wala pong implication yun kung saan nanggaling yung amount.
Ang tanging implication lamang nun ay merong amount doon pero hindi po yun
makakapagbigay ng ebidensya na valid ang pinanggalingan o legal ang
pinanggalingan ng account…ng ng pera.
Remarks of Congressman J. C. Lopez
Bribery can be established with circumstantial evidence
REP. BARZAGA: Well, actually, we don’t want to indulge in legal debate
but the problem here is that this is a case of bribery and insofar as bribery is
concerned, as a prosecutor, you know that there is no direct evidence in bribery.
It’s only a case of circumstantial evidence.
MR. RESADO: Your Honor, there is no case of bribery yet. I understand
there’s no case yet.
REP. BARZAGA: Yes, but it can be established with circumstantial
evidence. Would you agree with me?
MR. RESADO: Yes, Your Honor, but there is no evidence yet as of now.
Resado accused Lazaro of bribery
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, this morning, Mr. Resado, you made a very startling and alarming
revelation that there was an attempt on the part of Attorney Lazaro to bribe you
and which attempt was made as early as September 20 or September 21. My
inquiry, Mr. Chairman is that, is this the first time that you disclosed this
accusation against Attorney Lazaro?
MR. RESADO: Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: And a while ago, you stated that the reason why you
disclosed this for the first time today is that, you were not given the opportunity
to make this allegation, will that be correct?
MR. RESADO: Opo. Opo, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: I have been reading the story in “The Inquirer” today and
it is expressly mentioned that yesterday you called a friends conference…
VOICE: Press.
REP. BARZAGA: Press conference. You had a conference with the press
yesterday. And in that press conference, you actually disputed the contents of
this anonymous letter. You even stated that there was no bribery, would you
agree with me?
MR. RESADO: I did not state na there was…was no bribery.
REP. BARZAGA: You did not state that there was no bribery in the DOJ?
MR. RESADO: In the press statement, I do not remember regarding…
REP. BARZAGA: He branded as falsehood the allegations contained in the
anonymous letter. Meaning to say, the allegation that there was a deposit of
Php800,000 is a falsehood. What did you brand or what (were) you referring to
when you stated that there was a falsehood in the allegation contained in the
anonymous letter?
MR. RESADO: Kasi po, Your Honor, sa anonymous letter, dalawa pong 800
ang lumalabas na pumasok sa same account. Kaya sabi ko false ‘yan kasi ang
totoo 800 lang at dito nga naka-reflect sa aking original copy.
REP. BARZAGA: But in spite of the fact, you did not disclose yesterday in
your conference with the media about this alleged bribery?
MR. RESADO: Hindi po, wala pong…
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. During the course of our hearings, there was also a
statement made by Attorney Lazaro. As a matter of fact, it was an emotional
statement. And he stated that he called you on December 19 when they came to
know about the resolution dismissing the case. At ang sabi niya, “Pare, bakit
nagkabaliktaran?” And, according to him, your answer was, “Pare, ‘wag na tayong
mag-usap dito sa telepono, ‘yan ay na kay Chief State Prosecutor Zuño”. What can
you say about that statement of Attorney Lazaro, after all everything (have) been
recorded?
MR. RESADO: Opo, Your Honor. During that time po, sinagot ko yun, kung
matatandaan n’yo sa minutes, sinabi ko na nakakalungkot na bakit ganyan ang
kanyang tono na hindi totoo. Kasi po, totoong tumawag siya sa akin at nagsabi
siya sa akin, “Pare, meron na kaming release order dito. Bakit, ni-reverse ka ba ni
Chief Zuño?” “Hindi naman po,” sabi ko. “Ito ang findings namin”. Pero kako
nagda-drive ako, saka na natin pag-usapan ‘yan, nagda-drive ako, pasensiya na.
Sabi naman n’ya, “Okay, pare, sige, Merry Christmas na lang and I respect your
decision. E, kung talagang mahina,” sabi n’yang ganun.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, actually, I am also surprised with this revelation.
Kasi, nung nag-uusap tayo n’un, you have been always saying that the evidence is
insufficient. And my fellow congressman has asked you, “Bakit hindi mo
kinausap ang PDEA na kulang ang kanilang ebidensya, present additional
documents, present additional proof,” and your answer was, you are bound by
utmost neutrality insofar as the disposition of this case is concerned. Would you
not consider your allegation that you are bound by utmost neutrality not
consistent with what you have been saying right now, that you have been talking
with Attorney Lazaro of PDEA regarding this case?
MR. RESADO: Ah, hindi ko ma…mak’wan yung…makuha yung tanong…
REP. BARZAGA: No, sa ating House investigation, lagi mong sinasabi na
kayong prosecutor, when you make (an) investigation, you are neutral. You’re
not siding with the PDEA, neither are you siding with the respondents.
Pero lumalabas ngayon, nag-uusap kayo ni Attorney Lazaro. As a matter
of fact, you even stated that there was a bribe attempt on your part. Will that not
be inconsistent with your allegation that you are neutral insofar as the handling
of this case is concerned?
MR. RESADO: Consistent pa rin po, neutral pa rin kami. At hindi naman
masama na makikipag-usap sa’yo ang PDEA or si Attorney Lazaro sapagkat sila
po ang nag-endorse ng kaso sa akin.
REP. BARZAGA: Hindi masama na makipag-usap sa’yo pero hindi
n’yo…masama para sa inyo na sabihin sa PDEA, “Oops, kulang ang inyong
ebidensiya.”
MR. RESADO: Sinabi ko po iyon.
REP. BARZAGA: Sa?
MR. RESADO: Before the inquest, kinausap ko si Jigger Junnelier, sabi ko,
“Papano bang ginamit, bakit nangyaring ganito?” Ang sabi niya, “Ay, ang totoo po
n’yan, Fiscal, tunay na pera po ang ginamit namin d’yan.” “O, sige,” kako, “bahala
kayo, ilagay n’yo sa statement kasi…”
Without the waiver, Resado would be constrained to file the case
REP. BARZAGA: Let’s go back to that inquest. Well, according to you, there
was a waiver. Were you present when the waiver was executed by the
respondents?
MR. RESADO: Not anymore, Your Honor, because the three (3) counsels
(were) present with them.
REP. BARZAGA: And according to you, had there been no waiver, you will
be filing the case because the respondents would not be given the opportunity to
file their counter-affidavits.
MR. RESADO: Your Honor, I said, without the waiver within 24 hours, I
have to decide (on) the case.
REP. BARZAGA: And based on your assessment of the evidence, would
you be filing the case or not filing the case assuming that there was no waiver?
MR. RESADO: If there was no waiver, Your Honor, everything will be in
favor of PDEA. So, in that effect, I will be constrained to file the case.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. But right now, you followed ah…you ordered the
dismissal of this case?
MR. RESADO: Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: …after reading or assessing the evidence presented by
the respondents?
MR. RESADO: Opo, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: That would be all.
Arbitrary detention was filed against PDEA, but not DOJ
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Just a clarification. Well, I have read in the papers that
criminal cases for arbitrary detention had already been filed against PDEA. My
question to Attorney Verano is that, did he include the prosecutors of the DOJ in
the arbitrary detention cases filed?
MR. FELISBERTO VERANO, JR. (Counsel for the Respondents): Your
Honor, I think it is best that I explain from (the) start so (that) everybody
understands what’s happening.
In a…immediately after the arrest, there is an investigation, okay. And this
is conducted…it has to be resolved by the prosecutor within a maximum of about
72 hours. Now, it is our experience in…happening in the real world that within
that time, the prosecutor would, at least 90% of the time, file the case against the
respondents. If that happened with this case and it is filed in court and we will
have to fight it in court, if the court trial lasts three to four years, my clients, the
respondents now being accused will have to stay in jail for three to four years, if
in case we win the case. So, the right strategy and allowed by the rules is that we
will file a waiver, sign a waiver, so that we are waiving actually the detention
period so that we have a chance to submit our evidence so that we can fight this
only at the level of prosecution, preliminary investigation.
May I remind everyone that at the preliminary investigation and at the
inquest, the prosecutor at that time is acting as a judge. He is not a prosecutor.
He is a judge at that moment in time and we have to present our evidence, both
for the prosecution and for the defense.
Remarks by Congressman Crisologo.
REP. BARZAGA: So my question is…has not yet been answered.
MR. VERANO: Yes, sir. When after filing a waiver and then the prosecution
already files of rather releases in its joint resolution dismissing the case at that
point in time, Your Honor, the constitutional rights of the person kicks in so that
they have to be released immediately. The waiver detention is already waived or
is already nullified at that point in time.
REP. BARZAGA: What is the answer to my question, pañero?
MR. VERANO: The answer to your question is, when we…when they were
not being released by PDEA, we filed a case of arbitrary detention against PDEA
officials. We did not include DOJ because, precisely, they have an order of release
and they have dismissed the case. There is no sense in including them or getting
them into this case.
REP. BARZAGA: Now, the resolution for the dismissal of the case is dated
December 19.
MR. VERANO: Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: And according to the records, the respondents were
apprehended on September 19. So, from September 19 to December 19, it would
be a period of three months.
MR. VERANO: Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Prosecutor Zuño stated while ago that the waiver, as
much as possible, should not exceed 30 days. In this particular case, considering
that the Department of Justice took 90 days to final…to decide the case insofar as
the prosecution, insofar as the prosecutor is concerned, do you think that there is
a violation committed by the DOJ regarding the waiver against detention insofar
as your clients are concerned?
MR. VERANO: No, sir, there would be no violation because, may I inform
everyone that during the period of time, there were several settings of hearing,
which means that in our showing up in the DOJ, we had impliedly validated our
waiver until the case is resolved.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Just for the record, when was the case submitted
for the resolution of the DOJ prosecutor?
MR. VERANO: Ah…I do not recall the exact date, but sometime…I think
more than a month prior to the actual release of the…when we had ended our
submissions of our pleadings, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: So, it would be correct to state right now that practically
DOJ…it took DOJ, at least 30 days to decide the case.
MR. VERANO: Well, within that period, yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Just one final question. Well, Prosecutor Resado has
stated that he was not given the opportunity during the previous hearings to
state that there was an attempt to bribe made by Attorney Lazaro. I don’t want to
hear these reasons in future hearings. So, I would ask the DOJ prosecutors who
participated in the resolution, as to whether or not there has been any person
who attempted any bribe insofar as the performance of their duties are
concerned, namely: the prosecutors whose names appear in the resolution, that
would be Prosecutor Kimpo, Prosecutor Lasada, and of course, our Chief State
Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño.
MR. PHILLIP KIMPO (Senior State Prosecutor, National Prosecution
Service, Department of Justice): Your Honor, as far as I’m concerned, nobody
approached me. And besides, I was in the middle of the ladder, so to speak,
because after the resolutions of all my members in two task forces namely: illegal
recruitment and drugs. After they come up to my office, I have to…I have a
reviewer in those separate task forces who would review the cases and who
would recommend to me whatever actions to take. And after that, then that’s the
time I would recommend to the Chief State Prosecutor either for his approval or
disapproval, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you very much for that answer.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Point of order, Mr. Chair?
THE CHAIRPERSON: What’s the point of order?
REP. BARZAGA: Well, a while ago, we suspended the proceedings upon
the request of Prosecutor Zuño, that they would (be) conferring with one
another regarding what would be their best position regarding our request for
the waiver of the right of John Resado against the secrecy of bank deposit.
MR. ZUÑO: Okay.
REP. BARZAGA: We would like to find out now what is the stand of the
DOJ.
MR. ZUÑO: We are now ready.
Remarks of Congressman Cuenco
MR. ZUÑO: On the waiver, sir, Your Honor?
Remarks of Congressman Cuenco
MR. ZUÑO: Okay.
Remarks of Congressman Cuenco
MR. RESADO: Your Honor, please, as earlier stated, I am really in a
quandary whether to…to waive my right or not because I’m afraid that I might
lose some rights. Now, because I cannot secure the advice of somebody who is
expert in this kind of law, although I am willing as of now, I have to consult first
the members of the family and, of course, my relatives regarding this because
they are the one who is going to testify, to prove the sources of this amount. So,
I’m asking for a period of this weekend so that in the event, because as of now I
am willing to waive but I have some conditions which I would like to put in
writing so that it will in a nature of a conditional waiver. However, as I said, I
need to think over this weekend because I’m protecting my rights also as against
the bank and against the employee, Your Honor.
Resado: Suppression of evidence was committed by PDEA
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Kanina, Prosecutor Resado, sinabi mo na nang mag-usap kayo ni Attorney
Lazaro twice, in the morning and in the evening of September 20, ang sabi sa iyo
ni…the opening phrase of Attorney Lazaro is, “Positive ito”. Tama ba yun sinabi
niya positive ito noong umaga, sinabi niya positive ito noong hapon? What was
your impression? Ano ang pagkakaintindi mo nang sabihin ni Attorney Lazaro na
positive ito?
MR. RESADO: Kasi combination po ‘yun, Your Honor, ng salitang positive
ito, meron ito, malaki ito, gawin natin ng paraan ito, ako na ang bahala. So, by
that body language, alam ko na ang ibig niyang sabihin. Hindi ko na kailangang
maging particular because sanay na tayo sa ganyang offer, na alam mo na kaagad,
lumapit pa lang at sabihin sa iyo, naintindihan mo na agad. So para hindi siya maoffend, sabi ko, “Pare, huwag na nating pag-usapan yan kasi delikado talaga yan.
Mahirap. Hayaan na lang kung ano yung merits.”
REP. BARZAGA: So, ang impression mo that positive ito, ang ibig sabihin
may lagayan ito?
MR. RESADO: Iyan po ang aking pagkakaintindi during that time.
REP. BARZAGA: Hindi ba normally kapag may mga operation at sinabi ng
mga law enforcement agencies na ito ay positive, in common layman’s
appreciation ay ang ibig sabihin ng positive ito, a crime has been committed?
MR. RESADO: During that time, Your Honor, alam na naming dalawa na a
crime has been committed at meron ng ebidensiya kasi madaling-araw ng ano
yan nangyari. Nang tinawagan ako, sinabi na sa akin na ito, maraming ebidensiya,
maraming ganito. So I understand fully that it is positive for evidence. Pero yung
tono niya during that time na nag-usap kami, iba yung kanyang tumbok ng
kanyang pananalita. Kaya nga sinabi ko, ”Naku, delikado yan, baka hindi
pumayag si General Santiago at saka talagang ano tayo niyan, delikado.” Sabi
niya, “Huwag kang mag-alala kay General Santiago, kaya ko yan dahil kadikit ko
yan,” sabi niyang ganun.
REP. BARZAGA: So, on September 19, pagpunta mo lang sa PDEA
naniniwala ka…September 20, naniniwala ka na merong krimen na naganap?
MR. RESADO: Kasi automatic na kapag tinawagan ang Fiscal, na merong
ipapa-inquest, ibig sabihin may nahuli.
REP. BARZAGA: But you would agree with me that that belief of (yours)
on September 20, that a crime is al…was ac…was indeed committed, was not the
one which you sustained in dismissing the case, as contained in your resolution
of dismissal. Sa madaling sabi, kahit na noong September 20 naniniwala ka na
meron krimen na naganap, hindi yun ang pinaniwalaan mo nang ginawa mo ang
resolution for dismissal.
MR. RESADO: Nung September 20, nang dumating ako po, wala pa akong
hawak na kahit anong dokumento. Sabi nila, maraming ebidensiya, kumpleto. So
natural, ahh…ganun ba? Eh, di siguradong pasok yan. Pero nag-iba ang situation
noong natanggap ko na lahat ng papers.
REP. BARZAGA: Sabi ni Attorney Lazaro, noong September 20, siya ang
bahala sa mga dokumento. What is your impression o ano ang pagkakaintindi mo
nang sabihin ni Attorney Lazaro na siya ang bahala sa mga dokumento at sa mga
ebidensiya?
MR. RESADO: Kasi po follow-up question kasi…follow-up na proposal kasi
‘yun. Kasi sabi ko nga, on the merits lang tayo kung ano ang magiging ebidensiya,
huwag na anting pag-usapan ‘yun. Hindi, ako na ang bahala na ayusin ang mga
dokumentong yan, masisira yan. Ganun ang kanyang term eh. So, my
interpretation…ang my interpretation kasi sabi niya sisirain natin yan, palpak
yan, ibig sabihin, ang interpretation ko ay sasadyain na papalpakin. Kung
gagawin man yun na totoo o hindi, hindi ko na po alam kasi verbal lang yun.
REP. BARZAGA: Now, you are the prosecutor who handled the
preliminary investigation. You were able to see, to review all the documents and
other annexes to the complaint of PDEA. Will that be correct?
MR. RESADO: Opo.
REP. BARZAGA: Sa totoo, pinag-aralan mo lahat ng dokumento na
isinabmit ng PDEA pati dokumento na sinabmit ng mga respondent. Right now,
would you say that there was evidence to show that there was suppression of
evidence on the part of PDEA, that PDEA did not…sinasabi mo nga hindi inayos at
sinira ang mga dokumento. And because of that, you arrived at the conclusion for
the dismissal of the case?
MR. RESADO: Opo, tama po yan. Unang-una, ang sinasabi nilang
nakabukas na clutch bag na nakita sa kotse ni Brodett, hindi nila nilagay sa
inventory. Yung boodle money na sinasabi nila, hindi rin nila nilagay sa
inventory. Ang iba pang mga details ay nandun din sa resolution nakalagay, hindi
ko ma-memorize ngayon lahat po. Pero yun po ang mga bagay-bagay na
talagang…na kaya po ako nagsuspetsa na baka sinupress (suppress). Kasi po dun
sa inventory, maraming wala kagaya po halimbawa ng laptop na sinasabi, wallet,
personal things ng mga respondents nakuha sa kotse. Pangalawa po, sarili po
mismo nila hindi po nila kinontradict yung…yung allegation ng Bulldog Security
Agency doon po mismo sa Alabang na nagsasabi na ginugulpi nila yung
respondents habang nakataas ang kamay at binuksan nila yung compartment ng
kotse doon sa Alabang at nak…sinerts din nila yung si…si Brodett at nakita sa…sa
sapatos na suot ni Brodett yung isang shabu ng…ng security agency. Ngayon,
kung hindi totoo yun, kasi ang sabi nila, hinatak nila ang kotse at doon binuksan
sa PDEA, dapat sina…kinontra kaagad nila yung sagot ng respondents na
nakalagay doon nga ang attachment na…na sa reply…sa counter-affidavit ng
respondent na nakalagay dun na doon binuksan ang kotse. So magkaparehas po
na hindi magkatugma.
REP. BARZAGA: So in short, you are of the firm belief right now that after
carefully assessing all the documents, you arrived at the conclusion that PDEA
intentionally suppressed evidence which would be the basis for the existence of a
probable cause, they deliberately made statements which would appear to be
violative of the constitutional rights of the respondents and also violative of the
Dangerous Drug Act which would result to the dismissal of the case.
MR. RESADO: Ang akin pong interpretation, Your Honor, is 50-50.
Posibleng…
REP. BARZAGA: What is 50?
MR. RESADO: 50 percent ang aking iniisip baka posibleng sinadya, 50
percent iniisip ko rin na baka nagkamali kasi baka nagmadali at mawawala yung
opportunity, kailangang i-shortcut na lang at gamutin na lang yung mga kulang
through affidavit. Pero ganun pa man, kahit na anong remedy ang gawin,
nagkawindang-windang na lahat kasi nga po talagang hindi…incurable na po
yung defect, nandun na.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Unang-una, yung sinasabi mong nagmamadali. But
you also stated a while ago na merong pinirmahang waiver ang mga respondent.
And therefore, PDEA would have the time, would have sufficient time to prepare
properly the documents. Will you agree with me on that?
MR. RESADO: Ang tinutukoy ko pong pagmamadali during the operation
na aarestuhin nila yung tao, hindi po yung sa investigation. Iba po yun, Your
Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Now, just to confirm, you…you have stated in the
previous hearings that you did not believe that there was a buy-bust operation.
MR. RESADO: Tama po. Lumalabas po sa aking pag-aaral ng mga
dokumento na wala talagang buy-bust na nangyari although ang kanilang inaallege ay merong buy-bust kasi nga po doon sa mga defects…sa dami ng defects
na nakita, sabi ko mukhang wala talagang buy-bust dito.
REP. BARZAGA: So in short, you are of the opinion that this is a fabricated
case instituted by PDEA against the respondents?
MR. RESADO: Hindi po. Ang akin pong general analysis ay possible na
kinulang sila sa oras o tiyempo at hindi na nila kailangang palampasin ang
oportunidad na arestuhin, inaresto na lang kahit hindi nasunod yung tamang
proseso. Ibig sabihin, andito na eh, kaya na nating arestuhin, bakit pa natin
palalampasin? Saka na lang gamutin yung kulang. Parang ganun. Ibig sabihin,
meron naman talaga silang legitimate siguro na attempt kaya lang hindi nga
makumpleto dahil yung mga requirements at pati siguro yung coordination, nahold yung ibang kasama nila, kaya pinilit na lang na tapusin yung operation kahit
na alanganin, kasi natatakot siguro na mawala yung opportunity at napakahirap
na mag-operate sa loob ng Alabang Village.
REP. BARZAGA: Just one point. Ang sabi mo kanina nakausap mo mismo
yung agent who conducted the buy-bust. Based on your appreciation of facts
right now, naniniwala ka ba yung agent na diumano’y nag-conduct ng buy-bust,
talaga bang nag-offer siya o nag-attempt na bumili ng Ecstacy or whatever
prohibited drugs (from) Brodett?
MR. RESADO: Alanganin po kasi, Your Honor, kasi ang statement niya nga
nang magkuwentuhan kami ay tinanong ko siya kung ano ba ang ginamit na pera
eh buy-bust eh bakit hindi na-discover na boodle money. Sabi niya, “Original na
pera ang ginamit naming diyan para hindi ma-discover.” Yun ang sabi niya sa
akin habang nagkakape kami. So, ang interpretation ko, during that time eh totoo
na nag-attempt siguro silang mag-buy-bust. During that time, wala pa akong
hawak na documents, kuwento pa lang. Kasi yung documents po, nakumpleto
nila, Sunday evening na. Nandoon po ako simula Saturday 9 o’clock in the
morning.
REP. BARZAGA: So sa madaling sabi, Prosecutor Resado, at the start, you
believed that there was a buy-bust operation.
MR. RESADO: Opo, at the start, naniwala ako na meron pero noong nakita
ko na lahat, nabasa ko na lahat yung affidavit na sarili niyang statement ni
Junillier ay kinontra niya, medyo doon na ako nagduda. Sabi ko, mukhang wala
talagang buy-bust.
REP. BARZAGA: That would be all, Mr. Chairman.
Resado: The chemistry report had numerous errors
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Just a follow-up.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh.
REP. BARZAGA: Just one question.
Well, matagal na nating pinag-uusapan dito yung error regarding the
request for chemistry analysis at ang sabi nga ng PDEA, nagkamali lamang ang
date. Ibig sabihin, imbes na 12.15pm…imbes na 12.15am, ang napalagay ay
12:15…
VOICE: A.M. ang nakalagay.
REP. BARZAGA: A.M. No, it’s the other way around. Could you please
explain that, Major Marcelino?
MR. MARCELINO: Yes, sir, nagkamali lang po doon sa a.m. and p.m., sir.
Nagkapalit po na instead na a.m., naging p.m., sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay, sa madaling sabi, ang allegation ng PDEA, yung
request nila for chemistry analysis, according to PDEA, was actually delivered to
their chemist at 12:15 a.m., yes. Pero ang nailagay nila, ng receiving, imbes na
12:15 a.m., ang napalagay ay 12:15 p.m. Kaya nga ang sabi ni John Resado,
imposible aniya yan sapagkat paano kayo magri-request ng 12:15 p.m. of
September 20 samantalang ang drug…ang buy-bust as nangyari kalian?
MR. MARCELINO: Early morning of 19, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Early morning of 19. Perhaps we can take notice that
common experience ay ‘pag 12:15 ng gabi, 12:30 ng gabi, hindi nalalaman natin
na that is already the start of a new day, that that is already a.m.
Well, another point, John Resado, you would agree with me that said
result of the chemistry analysis was expunged from the records. Inalis sa records
iyan, hindi ba?
MR. RESADO: (inaudible/did not use the microphone) Hindi po. Nandoon
pa rin sa records although…sa order
REP. BARZAGA: There was a motion to expunge that. Is that correct?
MR. RESADO: Opo.
REP. BARZAGA: And you granted that order to expunge?
MR. RESADO: During the formulation of the resolution.
REP. BARZAGA: Yes, you granted that to expunge. And as (a) prosecutor,
alam mo naman na kapag walang chemistry report that the substance allegedly
taken by the authorities is a prohibited drug, siguradong dismissed ang asunto.
Would you agree with me?
MR. RESADO: Opo, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: And that would be the legal effect of deleting or
expunging from the records that chemistry report.
MR. RESADO: Iyong ini-ex…ganito po kasi, Your Honor, hindi po a.m. and
p.m. lamang iyong mali. Napakarami pong mali dito sa…anim po na class…
REP. BARZAGA: No, we are not talking, we are not talking. Ang sinasabi
lang natin kapag hindi mo kinonsider iyong resulta ng chemist, the analysis, even
if there has been no violation of the constitutional rights, even if there is positive
evidence, walang mangyayari sa asunto because there is no proof that the article
or the drug that was taken from (the) respondent happens to be a prohibited or
an illegal drug. Would you agree with me?
MR. RESADO: No, Your Honor. Kasi, the matter of expunging from the
record the laboratory result…
REP. BARZAGA: Simple lang ang sinasabi natin, puwede bang magprosper ang isang drug case nang walang report ang chemist certifying that what
was taken from the accused happens to be prohibited drugs?
MR. RESADO: Your Honor, iyong in-expunge lang po iyong reply-affidavit
eh. Iyong chemistry report ay nandoon pa rin po, intact pa rin, kasama pa rin sa
evidence.
REP. BARZAGA: But you did not consider that.
MR. RESADO: Kinonsider pa rin po, Your Honor, pero hindi po siya kasali
sa diskusyon, discussion ng resolution kasi ang main argument of the resolution
is iyong violation ng Section 21 at saka po iyong factual defect. So parang…
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. I’ll review (the) resolution and I will cite later…
MR. RESADO: Opo. Kaya po para sa…
REP. BARZAGA: …your allegation pertaining that chemistry report.
Remarks of Congressman Biazon
MR. RESADO: So para lang pong naging moot and academic iyong issue ng
result.
HEARING ON FEBRUARY 9, 2009
DOJ personnel were issued notices but the PDEA people were issued
subpoenas by the Fact-Finding Committee
REP. BARZAGA: Well, at this juncture, we have the Usec of the Secretary of
Justice and perhaps we can ask the opinion of Usec. Blancaflor (on) whether or
not the independent body has the power to issue subpoena.
Do we have the official lawyers of the govern…
MR. RICARDO BLANCAFLOR (Undersecretary, Department of Justice): Mr.
Chair, that would depend on the law that created the body. I understand this is
going to be an independent panel. So, in all probability, it is not going to be an
executive order; it will be an administrative order. So we will have to check that
administrative order if it gives the power to the independent panel that power to
issue subpoena or, in the event that there is none, if there are existing laws
empowering such created bodies.
Interpellation of Congressman Golez and Responses of Mr. Blancaflor
REP. BARZAGA: Well, I’m supposed to ask the opinion of Usec. Blancaflor
regarding certain issues and, considering his manifestation, I will no longer be
asking questions which would necessitate his opinion on some legal issues.
Just for the record, I was informed about the situation and it is a little bit
surprising that the Alabang Boys Independent Fact-Finding Committee issued
only notices to State Prosecutor John R. Resado, Senior State Prosecutor Philip I.
Kimpo, Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño. It is not a subpoena but merely
a notice.
On the other hand, insofar as the PDEA people are concerned, what was
issued was not a notice but a subpoena and a testificandum. And I’m really
unaware what is the reason why there is a difference between these notices or
subpoenas considering that the persons invited or subpoenaed are all
government employees.
Remarks of the Chairperson and Congressmen Golez and Crisologo
REP. BARZAGA: And may I also invite the attention of this Committee, we
might also inquire (on) who will be the personnel who will be used by this
independent body. Shall it be the personnel of the Department of Justice? Do they
have the necessary money to hire their own staff insofar as the independent
body is concerned? Because if they would be using employees or staff of the
Department of Justice, then the public would perceive that this would not be an
independent investigation.
Remarks of the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA: Yes. And of course, we want to know also…we want also
to know the origin of its existence. Where did it originate? Was it an order
coming from the Secretary of Justice? Or was there an executive order from the
President of the Republic of the Philippines?
DOJ Prosecutors do not provide assistance in handling evidence
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Just a follow-up question. Well, Mr. Chairman, Usec.
Blancaflor has stated that in cases of media killings from the very start they have
already a prosecutor and, understandably, that prosecutor assist you in handling
the evidence insofar as the killing is concerned. Will that be a right appreciation?
MR. BLANCAFLOR: Yes, Mr. Chair.
REP. BARZAGA: So, primarily from the start, you are guided by a
prosecutor regarding the kind of evidence which you have to look (for) and to
submit in order that there might be an airtight case during the level of
preliminary investigation.
MR. BLANCAFLOR: Yes, Mr. Chair.
REP. BARZAGA: Has the DOJ adopted this practice insofar as drug cases
are concerned?
MR. BLANCAFLOR: Mr. Chair, I wouldn’t know because I just limit it
to…my field in the DOJ is terrorism, extra-judicial killing and human trafficking.
REP. BARZAGA: But right now, would you be able to know or do you have
any knowledge whether or not this practice has been adopted?
MR. BLANCAFLOR: As far as I know, generally, the practice is not adopted.
MR. BLANCAFLOR: And would you be able to tell any reason why this
practice has not been adopted inasmuch as the drug problem happens to be a
very important problem pertaining to our society?
MR. BLANCAFLOR: Mr. Chair, I really wouldn’t know the reason. I’m new
in the department, but this is something I learned in my terrorism duties which I
am adopting here in extra-judicial and human trafficking.
REP. BARZAGA: But legally speaking, there would be no legal obstacle
right now if the same procedure of adopting or having a prosecutor at the very
start of the investigation of a drug case is concerned would be adopted by the
DOJ?
MR. BLANCAFLOR: With all due respects to earlier opinions, my position,
Mr. Chair, is that, as long as the prosecutor who accompany the investigating
team does not form part of the panel that will handle the preliminary
investigation, there is no legal obstacle.
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you very much for that clarification.
Case against Cai Qing Hai was dismissed due to insufficient evidence
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Mr. Chairman, would you be able to tell us the reason why
the case was dismissed initially by the prosecutor handling the preliminary
investigation?
MR. ROQUE MERDEGIA, JR. (Police Senior Inspector, Anti-Illegal Drugs
Special Operations Task Force, Philippine National Police): Mr. Chairman, I am
Senior Inspector Roque Merdegia, Jr. of the Philippine National Police Anti-Illegal
Drugs Special Operations Task Force.
With due respect to the Honorable Congressman from Cavite. The
Resolutions issued by the investigating prosecutor in the case of PNP-AIDSOTF
versus Cai Qing Hai, the findings of the prosecutor was for insufficiency of
evidence. So there are……the case was dismissed for lack of probable cause due
to insufficiency of evidence, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Do you have a copy of the resolution?
MR. MERDEGIA: Wala po kaming dala dito, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: More or less, would you be able to recall the date when
the respondents were released by virtue of that resolution of dismissal?
MR. MERDEGIA: The release order, Your Honor, was issued January 17,
2008. We were furnished by the counsels on that…on that same date, Your
Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: You were furnished by the counsel for the respondents?
MR. MERDEGIA: Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Not the prosecutor who made the resolution
recommending the dismissal?
MR. MERDEGIA: The formal copy sent to us was received by our office
two weeks after, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: That would be two weeks after the release.
MR. MERDEGIA: Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: So, you mean to say, that you just accept as gospel truth
the allegation of the respon…the counsel for the respondent insofar as the
dismissal is concerned?
MR. MERDEGIA: Mr. Chairman, the…the following day, a process server
coming from the Department of Justice was accompanied the…the counsel of the
respondents, Your Honor, to our office and furnished as also a Xerox copy, a
certified copy of the resolution, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Do you have a copy of the resolution overruled…do you
have a copy of the resolution of Secretary Gonzalez overruling the resolution of
dismissal?
MR. MERDEGIA: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have here the copy of the
resolution, the recent resolution of the Secretary of Justice.
REP. BARZAGA: Could you furnish a copy or could allow the Com Sec to
Xerox that copy…
MR. MERDEGIA: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: …so that we can see that resolution?
Release Order of Cai Qing Hai was issued by Zuño
Remarks of Congressmen Golez and Cuenco and Response of Mr. Merdegia
REP. BARZAGA: More or less, how long from the date of apprehension of
the respondents was that resolution of dismissal issued by the DOJ?
MR. MERDEGIA: If I am not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, it took three months.
The…the respondents were arrested on October 27 in Laguna and the resolution
was…dismissing the case was issued on January 17, 2008.
REP. BARZAGA: Was there any action made by AIDSOTF, by your group,
after receiving the resolution dismissing the case?
MR. MERDEGIA: We…when we received the resolution dismissing the
case, we argued the counsels that we are…the case is still under automatic
review under Department Circular No. 46. So we did not release on that day the
respondents, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: And what happened when you said to the counsel for the
respondents that the case is still subject of automatic review and therefore, the
respondents should not be released?
MR. MERDEGIA: The following day, Mr. Chairman, they furnished us a
release order issued by Chief State Prosecutor Zuño and from that, we believe
that we no longer have authority or right to detain the respondents, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Do you have a copy of that release order?
MR. MERDEGIA: We will furnish the Committee, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Just for a while. Excuse me. Just for a while. Will you
please give us, if you can recall, more or less, the subject matter of the offense? Is
it possession, is it maintenance of a drug laboratory, how many, more or less,
kilos of shabu or marijuana? If you can remember only so that we could have a
bird’s eye view of whether or not these are high-profile cases.
MR. MERDEGIA: Okay, Mr. Chairman. Insofar as this Li Lang Yan Yan case,
I could not remember the facts of this case. It happened in 2003, Mr. Chairman.
However, as far as I can remember, this case is also a shabu laboratory.
Then another case, Mr. Chairman, PNP-AIDSOTF versus Mimi Boratong,
et. al. It was dismissed for lack of probable cause. The case is an offshott of the
dismantling of shabu tiangge in Pasig. The respondent, sir, is the wife of Amin
Imam Boratong.
Comments of Congressman Crisologo and the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA: Just to follow-up that point. It was not reversed. But was
there a resolution confirming the initial resolution made by the DOJ Prosecutor
dismissing the case or no action was made by the Secretary of Justice?
MR. MERDEGIA: There was none, Mr. Chairman.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: During the last hearing, Mr. Chairman…
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
REP. BARZAGA: …I requested for a brief synopsis of all the cases handled
by the DOJ, those cases which have been the subject of preliminary investigation,
those cases which were dismissed as a result o the preliminary investigation,
those cases which were filed after the preliminary investigation, as well as those
cases that were filed in court as well as the dismissal.
VOICE: Bagong bigay lang. Ngayon lang. Ngayon lang.
REP. BARZAGA: Ngayon lang naibigay.
So, I would also request the AIDSOTF to submit a similar document
because according to you, there were 108 convictions. We want to know whether
these are convictions on the merits or they were convicted because they enter a
plea of guilty for a lesser criminal offense. If six (6) were dismissed, what was the
basis of (the) dismissal? Was the basis of dismissal insufficiency of evidence or
was the band sis of (the) dismissal because our law enforcement authorities
failed to appear during the scheduled hearing or the prosecutor was absent and
was not able to present evidence on behalf of the state? It is only by looking at
these cases can we properly appreciate as to whether or not our campaign
insofar as the drug problem is concerned is really effective and the persons who
are supposed to prosecute and present evidence are actually doing their jobs.
MR. MERDEGIA: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Usec. Blancaflor waived his right under RA 1405 & 6426 for his Metrobank
account
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Well, we have Attorney Aquino coming from the AntiMoney Laundering Council. So, Mr. Chairman, let me ask Attorney Aquino, what
would be the minimum requisites in order that a depositor could execute a valid
waiver which would authorize AMLC to verify, to examine, and to look into the
account, bank account of a particular depositor?
MR. VICENTE S. AQUINO (Executive Director, Anti-Money Laundering
Council): Mr. Chairman, the waiver must be in writing and it must refer to
particular accounts so that there would be no question at all as to which accounts
are the subject of the waiver. Under Republic Act No. 1405 and Republic Act No.
6426, the Foreign Currency Bank Deposit Secrecy Law, the waiver of the
depositor must be in writing referring to particular bank accounts or
investments.
REP. BARZAGA: So, in a case like this, where Usec. Blancaflor is waiving
only the investigation, a re-examination of his Metro Bank account, that is also
permitted under existing laws as long as the waiver is made in writing?
MR. AQUINO: And it is voluntary.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, of course, it presupposes. Otherwise, if there was
compulsion or coercion, there will be no valid waiver.
MR. AQUINO: That is right, Mr. Chairman, but that is really the call of the
depositor.
REP. BARZAGA: Yes, and I think Usec. Blancaflor is waiving his right
voluntarily insofar as that particular Metro Bank account is concerned. Will that
be correct, Usec. Blancaflor?
MR. BLANCAFLOR: Yes, Mr. Chair, that is correct.
AMLC cannot disclose the results of its investigation without the waiver of
the depositor
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Let me follow-up that point. Well, do you mean to say,
Attorney Aquino, that even if these persons who are willing to execute a waiver
and in fact actually executed the corresponding waivers and because of those
waivers AMLC actually conducted its investigation, the results cannot be made
public or cannot even be furnished to this Committee unless there is another
waiver?
MR. AQUINO: That will depend, Mr. Chairman. Until the Anti-Money
Laundering Council finds probable cause to warrant the filling of a money
laundering case or other violation of the AMLA before the Department of Justice
or the Office of the Ombudsman, as the case may be, we cannot disclose the
results of our investigation unless and until authorized by the depositor or
investor himself that we can disclose the results of our bank inquiry or
examination. That if provided for under the AMLA and the revised implementing
rules and regulations, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: So, even if Usec. Blancaflor and Prosecutor Kimpo should
execute that waiver and even if the results of your investigation confirm the
position of Usec. Blancaflor that the allegation in the e-mail is not actually correct
and accurate; nonetheless, you cannot make any disclosure exonerating Usec.
Blancaflor?
MR. AQUINO: Yes, until our investigation is completed and until the
results thereof already validated, we cannot disclose this. That is why…Because
the waiver is only in favor of the Anti-Money Laundering Council, that would be
different. If the waiver is also made in favor of this Honorable Committee in
addition to a waiver in favor of the AMLC. In that case, we can already disclose
this.
Banks have been cooperative in AMLC’s investigations
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Assuming that there (have) been documents executed by
Usec. Blancaflor, more or less, what would be the timeline? How long will it take
(for) AMLC to examine and to make a conclusion regarding the examination of
the bank of…banks…regarding that bank account?
MR. AQUINO: The soonest time possible, Your Honor, and based on our
experience, this can be done even in a matter of hours or a few days, sir,
assuming that the bank will fully cooperate.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, is there any legal reason why the bank can refuse to
fully cooperate with you? Because the implication is that if the bank would refuse
to cooperate with you, you would not be able to accomplish your job or your
undertaking.
MR. AQUINO: I am…I am not aware of any legal reason for the bank not to
cooperate. But I just want to be very pragmatic about this.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, based on cases which you have investigated, has
there been instances where the bank refuses to cooperate with you? And what is
the reason why they refuse so that we can make the necessary legislation if the
law is deficient?
MR. AQUINO: Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, on a few occasions, a number
of banks did not immediately cooperate. They said that the records of the
transaction are being traced so that they have been transferred to another
location or in a warehouse for inventory and this will really…and this had caused
delay in our inquiry. But generally speaking, the banks have been cooperative
with the AMLC.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay, thank you very much for that information.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Just one point. Well, I have received the requested
documents from the…actually this was submitted by the National Bureau of
Investigation regarding the summary of cases. We would fully understand the
cases filed if this Committee would be furnished copies of the complaint,
complaint filed before the DOJ as well as the complaint filed before the regular
courts of justice. Because what is stated here is merely violations of Section 11,
etcetera, etcetera, we do not know what would be the volume, the quantity of
drugs subject matter of this criminal offense so that we will know whether these
are high…high-profile cases or small-time cases involving small-time drug
pushers. And I think you can easily furnish us copies of the
complaints…complaints filed before the DOJ as well as the criminal complaints
filed by the DOJ before our regular courts of justice.
May I know any response? May I hear any response?
MR. DIAZ: Your Honor, please, the head of our division who is in charge of
drug cases just went out. May I request the permission of this Honorable Body to
give us a little time to wait for him, Your Honor?
REP. BARZAGA: And may I also make a similar request insofar as the
AIDSOTF is concerned, copies of the complaints so that we will know, more or
less, the gist of the offense.
MR. DIAZ: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
First-time positive confirmatory drug result is not a ground for expulsion
or any disciplinary action
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. With the indulgence of Congressman Teodoro.
In the event that the drug testing on secondary students should turn out
to be positive even after the confirmatory test conducted by a duly licensed drug
company, what do the parents or the community expect?
Remarks of Congresswoman Garin
REP. BARZAGA: Ano ang mangyayari?
MR. ROMEO VERA CRUZ (Undersecretary, Dangerous Drugs Board): Yes,
as provided for in the Board Regulation, a first-time positive confirmatory drug
result shall not be a ground for expulsion or any disciplinary action.
REP. BARZAGA: That is why we have to be specific. Iyan ba ay
papapasukin pa natin considering that under the law, that is not a ground for
expulsion or should he be confined to a rehabilitation center, etc.? Because these
would be the questions of the Parents-Teachers’ Association in every public high
school and even in private high schools.
MR. VERA CRUZ: It would depend, Mr. Chairman, if that student is found
positive after a confirmatory test, is a drug dependent…
There is no resolution yet on whether pushers who are also users should
be rehabilitated or charged with a criminal case
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: May I interject something just to clarify this legal aspect?
Well, I have read the decision of the Supreme Court and it seems that the
Supreme Court has ruled that insofar as drug testing of suspects or respondents
(is) concerned, they are unconstitutional because it is no…no longer a case of
random, suspicion-less drug-testing. Can the lawyers from the Dangerous Drugs
Board comment on this?
MR. JULIETO P. ROXAS (Chief, Legal Affairs Division, Dangerous Drugs
Board): Sir…, thank you, sir.
First, I would like to discuss on the procedure of rehabilitation. There are
two types of rehabilitation as provided for by law – it is compulsory and
voluntary. These two things is for those people who are not arrested or who
were not arrested. So, if we…somebody wants to volunteer for rehabilitation, he
has to go to PDEA and file a…an application and PDEA will correspondingly file
the petition to court. Now, there is a need of court order considering that we
have a period to comply the treatment. So, if there is no court order and that
period is not specified, if one patient feel that he is already rehabilitated even if
he has only undergone two months rehabilitation, he will not be able to complete
and just go out.
The other thing is the compulsory rehabilitation. If the parents observe
that his son or his or her re…relatives within the fourth civil degree is showing
signs that he is a drug dependent, he now goes to PDEA…to DB and apply for
petition. So, the court now will determine…will order physicians to examine the
subject if he is really a drug dependent.
Now, we relate it to the…to these people, the Alabang Boys, as questioned
by…as brought by the Honorable Congresswoman from Iloilo. She is asking why
these Alabang Boys were not subjected to rehabilitation mere fact that they are
already positive. Different law is applied in this case because Section 15 says that
a fellow who is arrested for violation of Republic Act No. 9165 and found positive
for drug test, the…he will be charged for violations of Section 15 and that, in
Section 15, he will not go to prison if he is sentenced but the penalty is 6-month
rehabilitation. So, these… Alabang Boys who were arrested…allegedly arrested
for pushing is sued some charge for selling drugs, violation of Section 5 and
violation of Section 15, sir. These cases have not been resolved yet that’s why
these people are not yet put to rehabilitation nor to the bar of justice.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Another question. Do you have statistics (on) how many
of those rehabilitated would be going back to rehabilitation?
Remarks of the Chairperson
MR. VERA CRUZ: I think the relapse rate is 40…30, 40 percent.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Are the prosecutors subject to Civil Service Laws?
Remarks of Congressman Crisologo
MR. BLANCAFLOR: Yes, Your Honor.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Well, in connection with that manifestation of the Counsel
of Prosecutor Resado, we would also request for a copy of the written
resignation duly stamped by the PTA to prove the authenticity of such allegation
assuming that indeed there was resignation.
And second, I would like to revive my previous motion a while ago
regarding this receipt of the documents summarizing the cases filed, dismissed
and pending before the appropriate courts. I would request Attorney Bolivar to
submit also the complaints filed with the DOJ, the complaints filed with the
various courts, criminal complaints, as well as the orders of dismissal regarding
the drug cases in order that we can also properly appreciate all these cases
which has been the subject of this investigation also.
MR. ROEL BOLIVAR (Head Agent, Anti-Illegal Drugs Task Force, National
Bureau of Investigation): Mr. Chairman, Your Honor, we will submit the
requested documents as soon as possible so that this Honorable Committee can
study these decisions.
Thank you, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: What could be the longest period of that phrase…as soon
as possible?
Remarks of the Chairperson
MR. BOLIVAR: We will do that, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Thank you very much.
Disclosure of tax returns can be made only on certain circumstances
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: What would be those “certain circumstances”?
MR. EFREN MARTINEZ (Chief, Personnel Inquiry Division, Bureau of
Internal Revenue) : The circumstances are enumerated in the Opinion No. 72,
Series of 1991 rendered by the Secretary of Justice, which says that, “The existing
rules on inspection of such return, provided that such inspection is allowed only
as follows: To BIR officials and employees whose official duties require such
inpect…inspection; the person who actually made the return; number 3…3, the
administrate…administrator, executor of a deceased person, and number 4, is the
heirs of law or next-of-kin of such deceased person.”
Additionally, Your Honor, the same revenue regulation also provides for
inspection tax returns by head of an executive department and the rule provides
for certain conditions and this is with respect to request emanating from head of
executive department, namely, there must be a written application, the
application must be signed by such head, and the request must be in connection
with the matter officially pending before him, and it must be approved by the
Secretary of Finance. So, these are on…the only circumstances here a tax return
can be allowed to be produced.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, actually, the provisions which you have read pertain
to request coming from the heads of the various…
MR. MARTINEZ: Yes.
REP. BARZAGA: …executive…agencies under the executive department.
Are there rules applicable insofar as request coming from the legislature is
concerned?
MR. MARTINEZ: From the legislature, Your Honor, we cannot do that
unless there is an order of the President, Your Honor.
Remarks of Congressmen Cuenco and Crisologo and Response of Mr. Martinez
REP. BARZAGA: What is Section 2-7?
MR. MARTINEZ: Section 270 is a provision of the Tax Code and it refers to
unlawful divulgence of business and trade secrets of a taxpayers, which includes
the disclosure of the tax return, Your Honor.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: This is just an inquiry. Has there been any cases where
the Ombudsman had requested you to disclose these Income Tax Returns of
certain government officials subject matter of their investigation?
MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, Your Honor, because in the…in the law creating the
Ombudsman, there is a clear provision allowing the disclosure of Income Tax
Return involving investigation by the Ombudsman of government officials…of
cases pending before them.
HEARING ON FEBRUARY 12, 2009
The statements of the respondents during the Fact-Finding Committee
hearing may be used against them
REP. BARZAGA. Well, before we decide on the motion, may I request the
counsel for the, respondents? Atty. Verano regarding his position insofar as these
issues are concerned:
Number one, what is his position considering that up to now the
Secretary of Justice has not yet decided on the automatic review of the resolution
of the dismissal; and, number two, what is his position insofar as the
independent investigation is being conducted.
I was inclined to ask these questions because if we feel that in cases which
have not yet been finally resolved by the Department of Justice, it is possible that
we may craft a law prohibiting an independent investigation while the case is
still subject of review because it might prejudice the rights of the accused. May
we hear your comment?
MR. VERANO JR. Yes, your honor. Thank you very much.
First of all, I fully agree with Congressman Golez on the point that it is
about time that the Secretary should resolve the automatic review. I was here
during that congressional hearing wherein he said he was going to do it in 10
days. The 10 days has passed.
Not only that, Your Honors. On the same authority, the re… sorry, the
internal memorandum that said that there is an automatic review, it stated also
in that same piece of memorandum that the case has to be resolved in 30 days.
Officially, I heard that he officially informed this Congress that congressional
meeting, ah, committee meeting, that he received it January 5. Thirty one days of
January that should make it February 4, he should have had already resolved it,
and yet to this day, nothing has come out, I think it would clear the air, one way
or another, whether the case should be filed or not, or the case is dismissed.
Now with regard to the independent fact-finding committee, Your Honor,
we attended all the hearings except for today, and we were assured that
whatever findings they have will be only as an informative in nature to the
President, but would not delve, or rather should not influence the case itself
because the case has already been dismissed and is up for review. We were
participating fully there because we felt that the approach of the Committee is
quite fair, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Another clarification, I understand that two of our clients,
namely Brodett and…
MR. VERANO JR…. Tecson, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. … Tecson voluntarily submitted themselves and actually
testified in the course of the investigation. Was it voluntary or through
subpoena?
MR. VERANO. No, Your Honor, it was… they were requested to testify and
they did not voluntarily testified, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. If, indeed, that the resolution would be reserved, meaning
to say that a case has been… will be filed against your clients, can their
testimonies there be used against your clients?
MR. VERANO. Well, we believe… first of all, before they started, we
reserved all our rights granted by law. However, Your Honor, their testimony
cannot be used or could not be used against them because what they said only
was the truth, and when you tell the truth then there’s nothing to fear, Your
Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. But they can be used in impeaching their credibility
because these are statements made publicly.
MR. VERANO. Well, there is nothing to impeach. You are only impeached
when…
REP. BARZAGA. In other words just to cut short the discussion, they may
be used against them?
MR. VERANO. It may be used against them.
REP. BARZAGA. Thank you very much.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Well, just a point of clarification. In the investigation of
the independent body, you allowed your clients, the respondents, to testify and
they did not invoke their right against self- incrimination?
MR. VERANO. Yes, Your Honor, we’re willing to do that.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Can we go to another point, Mr. Chairman?
Remarks of the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA. Well, I received right now a letter coming from Usec.
Blancaflor and this letter is actually… the basis is the assurance of Usec.
Blancaflor to execute a waiver. I understand this letter was submitted to the
Office of the Executive Director, Anti- Money Laundering Council, on February 9.
May we know any update regarding this letter of Usec. Blancaflor from Director
Aquino?
MR. AQUINO. Mr. Chairman, before I answer, may I look at that letter in
your possession, please?
REP. BARZAGA. Well, the letter here shows…
MR. AQUINO. Can I approach?
REP. BARZAGA. I’ll just give a copy to you.
(At this juncture, Mr. Aquino approached Rep. Barzaga to have the copy of the
letter.)
REP. BARZAGA. Saan galing yun?
Remarks of the Chairperson
For drug-related cases, AMLC can examine bank accounts even without a
court order
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. May I make a follow-up? Well, the issue here is bribery. If
the DOJ will be filing the case against the respondents, then you will have the
right to pursue the investigation insofar as the bribery issue is concerned. Will
that be a correct statement?
MR. AQUINO. Pressed to money laundering, but…
REP. BARZAGA. So, in…
MR. AQUINO. May… excuse me, but if we can show or if the evidence will
show that certain bank deposits came from that identified unlawful activity or a
narcotics offense and… yeah, these funds can actually be looked into by the
AMLC already.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, in other words, where will you get the data
regarding the bank account? Or motu propio you can investigate already and ask
for the opening of the bank account of those persons who are being suspected as
participants to the bribery?
MR. AQUINO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If a drug case is involved, we don’t need
a court order before we can inquire into or pry open any bank deposits or
investment related to the proceeds of that particular unlawful activity.
REP. BARZAGA. If the resolution is dismissal and it was dismissed for the
simple reason that there was a bribery, because that is the essence of bribery,
you give bribery… you make a bribe in order not to file a case. Under these
circumstances, the drug case was dismissed, it was dismissed on account of
bribery, and will you have the right to investigate or none at all?
MR. AQUINO. We have the right to investigate if the dismissal is not based
on the merits. If there is evidence that these certain bank deposits are related to
that narcotics offense, then the AMLC can go ahead even if the case is dismissed
on a technicality because we are relying on the evidence.
REP. BARZAGA. Who will determine who will determine whether or not
you will have the right to investigate? Will it be you? Or will it be the DOJ, or the
House?
MR. AQUINO. The AMLC will determine for itself whether it can proceed
with the investigation. We can actually request a copy of the entire records of the
case either from PDEA or from the Department of Justice, and we can also
conduct our on… well, we can also gather evidences from other sources.
AMLC is taking action on the case of the “Alabang Boys”
REP. BARZAGA. Next question. Suppose. Like in this particular case, there
has been no final resolution, considering that there has been automatic review
pending before the Secretary of Justice, however, although there has been no
final resolution there are allegations of bribery. On this particular case, do you
have already the right to investigate?
MR. AQUINO. Well, Mr. Chairman, AMLC proceedings are confidential.
We’re not supposed to disclose what we’re doing now. But I must tell the
committee that the AMLC is taking action. But I cannot disclose the kind of
action.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, we are really a little bit confused with your
statement. Because in the previous hearings, you stated categorically before us
that you do not have jurisdiction to investigate these bank accounts unless there
is a waiver. You even stated, even assuming that there has been a waiver itself
expressly states that the bank depositor is willing to disclosed the results of your
investigation how would you reconcile the statement of yours made during the
previous hearings with your statement right now that you are making
confidential investigations, you are doing something?
MR. AQUINO. I did not say we are making confidential investigation, Mr.
Chairman, I just said AMLC is taking action on this. And I don’t think there is a
need to reconcile, with due respect, Your Honor, because the last hearing we
were talking of the waiver executed by some DOJ officials. And as I said, if the
waiver will be in writing, it is unconditional, and it includes the authority for the
AMLC to disclose this to this committee, then we can go ahead with this inquiry
based on the waiver. But the inquiry that I am referring to in today’s hearing is
the regular inquiry to be conducted by the AMLC upon the determination of the
existence of probable cause, that these deposits are… represent, involve or relate
to the proceeds of a narcotics offense or either unlawful activities as defined in
the AMLC.
AMLC will disclose the results of its investigation to the appropriate agency
which excludes Congress
REP. BARZAGA. Well, that inquiry which you are making right now,
assuming you conduct verification or an investigation of the bank deposits, will
the results of your investigation be made public?
MR. AQUINO. AMLC will not make public the results of its investigation.
We will allow the agency with which we file the appropriate case to disclose to
the public but AMLC is barred from disclosing any information in relation to the
results of its investigation.
REP. BARZAGA. Just a follow-up question. What about this committee or
Congress itself? Will you be furnishing us a copy of that?
MR. AQUINO. What is that, Your Honor?
REP. BARZAGA. Well, according to you, you are actually conducting (an)
investigation right now. And your answer is that after (your) investigation, you
will be furnishing it to the appropriate agency. Will Congress be considered as an
appropriate agency which would be entitled to a copy of your findings?
MR. AQUINO. You see again with due respect to the committee, I am
referring to the DOJ, or the office of the Ombudsman, or the courts but not this
honorable committee.
REP. BARZAGA. Suppose this Honorable Committee should request you a
copy because we want to strengthen the existing laws, would you be already
furnishing us or would you be a violation of the anti… of the provisions of the
Anti- Money Laundering Law?
MR. AQUINO. There will be a violation, Your Honor, because we are
prohibited from disclosing the results of our investigation. And we allow,
normally, it’s the courts, or the DOJ, or the office of the Ombudsman that reveals
this, but never the AMLC be the source of any information regarding the results
of its own investigation.
REP. BARZAGA. Thank you very much, Mr. Aquino, for that clarification.
Remarks of Congressman Zialcita
AMLC is finalizing its report on Usec. Blancaflor’s Metrobank account
REP. BARZAGA. I’ll just go back to my original question.
In fairness to Secretary Blancaflor who has been very cooperative with us,
considering further that he has executed a written waiver, a copy of which has
been furnished to your office, and he was gracious enough to give us personally
this morning copies of his written waiver, may we know any report or any
update from AMLC?
MR. AQUINO. We are finalizing the report about this and we can disclose
this because we were given authority by Usec. Blancaflor to disclose this to this
Honorable Committee. That is why I can not… until now the report is… we have
terminated the investigation of this account and we are finalizing the report to
this Honorable Committee because of the authority given to us by Usec.
Blancaflor to that effect, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. For how long, how long do you need to finalize this
report?
MR. AQUINO. Well, we will finalize this within the week.
REP. BARZAGA. Thank you very much for that information.
Resado confirmed that he is not waiving his right to the secrecy of his bank
deposit
REP. BARZAGA. Can I follow up my… the issue of waiver insofar as
Prosecutor Resado is concerned? Do you confirm that you have executed a
written waiver regarding… waiving your right to the secrecy of your bank
deposit before the independent fact-finding committee?
MR. RESADO. No, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So the newspaper report this morning stated that you are
waiving your right to secrecy of your bank deposit is not accurate?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor. Actually, the newspaper report since the
day 1 is not accurate.
REP. BARZAGA. So, in other words you are not waiving your right?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Before the independent fact-finding body regarding the
secrecy of your bank deposit.
MR. RESADO. That is correct, Your Honor. I only allowed the bank to
submit to them a statement of account dated September to December 2008
because they are trying to find out whether the amount of 50 million was
deposited to my account.
REP. BARZAGA. 50 million.
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor, because that was the noise created by
some people here.
Resado did not invoke his right to self-incrimination during the hearing of
the Fact-Finding Committee
REP. BARZAGA. Well, I understand from the newspaper also that you gave
your statement here. You testified there. Is that report in the newspaper accurate
or not?
MR. RESADO. That is correct, I testified here, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. No, before in the independent fact-finding body, did you
testify there?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor, that’s correct.
REP. BARZAGA. When you testified, did you invoke your right to selfincrimination?
MR. RESADO. There was no incriminatory asked to me, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So you can determine whether or not the questions will
be incriminatory or not?
MR. RESADO. Of course, Your Honor.
On a court case filed by security guards -PTA: Prosecutor Resado had been negligent
Resado: PTA had a settlement
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Can I follow up?
Well, you stated a while ago that PTA lost case in the sum of 3 million
pesos because of Prosecutor Resado. What made you say that PTA lost the case of
3 million because of Prosecutor Resado?
MR. TEODORO HERNANDEZ (Head, Legal Department, Philippine
Tourism Authority). I am holding now, Your Honor, the decision of the Regional
Trial Court stating the reason why PTA lost the case, for failure to present
evidence, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Aha, did you appeal the case?
MR. HERNANDEZ. No, Your Honor, because since we lost it already we
have no authority present even an appeal considering Atty. Resado failed to
adduce evidence during the trial in the Regional Trial Court.
REP. BARZAGA. So in other words, if you would be appealing the case, it
would be useless?
MR. HERNANDEZ. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. … Because there is no evidence on the part of PTA?
MR. HERNANDEZ. PTA, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And what’s the nature of that case, is that a damage suit?
MR. HERNANDEZ. No, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Collection case…
MR. HERNANDEZ. No, Your Honor, these are unpaid wages of the security
agency.
REP. BARZAGA. So would you say that the cause of the dropping of that
case was pure neglect on the part of the lawyer?
MR. HERNANDEZ. Yes, Your Honor.
Remarks of Congressman Crisologo
MR. RESADO: Your Honors, please.
The speaker here, Attorney Teodoro Hernandez, was my boss before in
the Philippine Tourism Authority. That case is a claim of security guards for
wage increases for the past years, Your Honor. That case was very meritorious
because, in fact and in law, the PTA failed to pay the increase in wages as
mandated by the Regional Wag Board and the National… and the Labor
Commission.
Now, during the process of that hearing, we have already made
arrangement to…in order to lower our liability and any communication during
that period was duly noted by my superior, especially Attorney Hernandez, Your
Honor. And that is why the Civil Service Commssion-NCR noted that I was
negligent…I was not negligent because all my actions were under the note of my
superior and it was duly noted and approved by my superiors.
As a matter of fact, Your Honor, the purpose why I did not attend is
because there was already a settlement in order to lower the liability of PTA. And
it was, in fact, my superiors who instructed me not to attend the hearing
anymore because it was already agreed upon considering that the claim was very
meritorious, there is a law increasing the salaries of security guards all over the
country, and for three times the Philippine Tourism Authority failed to pay that
increase in wages mandated by law. So that is the truth, Your Honor. That is why
I was reinstated by the Civil Service Commission-NCR and noted the fact that I
never was negligent in that handling of case, Your Honor.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Just a follow-up question. Was there any lawyer who
prepared the appeal of PTA Chairman Kua?
MR. RONQUILLO. It was Kua himself, Your Honor.
The resolution dated December 2 was actually prepared on November 28
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Just one more question. Is it in the practice of DOJ that
you antedate the resolutions which you are making?
MR. RESADO. Usually, Your Honor, if it falls on a weekend, and I know that
it will be… it will be forwarded to the next working day, I should date it on that
future date because…in order to… in order to conform with the logbook, Your
Honor. Because if I dated it, for example, November 28, it will not conform with
the logbook because it will be forwarded on December 2. So, that is how I… I do
my job.
REP. BARZAGA. You signed that Resolution is that correct?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. You put the date December 2?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Would you not consider that a falsification because you
are making an untruthful narration of facts that you are placing the date
December 2, when in the truth or in the fact, you (made) that Resolution
November 28?
MR. RESADO. No, Your Honor. Because the date… the date of the
resolution should reconcile to the time that it was forwarded on December 2 so I
need to… to… to… conform with the…with the date it is suppose to be forwarded
Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Could you not forward it on November 28?
MR. RESADO. It was late already, Your Honor. That was already 5:00
o’clock in the afternoon and the office is until 4:30 in the afternoon, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. What made you sure that you made that on November…at
5:00p.m.? Hindi mo nga matandaan kung December 1 o November 28, ngayon
natatandaan mo ang oras, alas singko ng hapon.
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor, because I realized that it was…I am very
sure of that time that it was already late in the afternoon.
REP. BARZAGA. Anong ginawa mo nung alas kwatro ng hapon ng
November 28?
MR. RESADO. I understand, Your Honor, the whole day I was in the office
trying to finish my work.
REP. BARZAGA. Is it the policy there in the DOJ na pag may mga resolution
pinipir…pinopost date nyo?
MR. RESADO. It is not a matter of policy, Your Honor. It maybe a matter of
practicality to… just to conform with the dates when it was forwarded.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, aside from you, sino pang gumagawa nyan
Prosecutor?
MR. RESADO. Well, I believe some others are doing that, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Could you mention the names?
MR. RESADO. I cannot mention names, Your Honor, because all of us…
REP. BARZAGA. Does Secretary Gonzalez and Usec. Blancaflor know that
practice and tolerate it?
MR. RESADO. I don’t know, Your Honor, if they are aware of it.
Resado intends to appeal the decision of the CSC on the PTA case
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Just one follow-up question to the question of my good
friend Congressman Crisologo. This would be addressed to Prosecutor Zuño. It is
not a fact that in the resolution signed by Resado or by other prosecutor which
have been the subject of review by you, you affix your signature in the resolution
itself and below your signature or opposite your signature you placed the date?
MR. KIMPO. Usually, I do not see the dates, Your Honor, even in our
superiors, we just sign our name. Anyway, there’s a logbook.
REP. BARZAGA. Ah, you just sign your name… our name?
MR. KIMPO. Anyway, it can be traced through the… through the logbook
of every secretary, Your Honor.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Chair, may I have the floor?
Remarks of the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA. Well, our resource persons from PTA, as well as from Civil
Service Commission, are already begging that they be excused. However, I would
like to clarify certain points.
First, to the Civil Service commission. A while ago, Prosecutor Resado
stated that he would be appealing your decision rendered.
Remarks of the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA. … In 2007. Does Prosecutor Resado have the right; still
have the right to appeal that case or to file a motion for Reconsideration?
MR. ARIEL RONQUILLO (Director IV, Office of Legal Affairs, Civil Service
Commission). Well, Your Honor, we cannot stop anyone or any party from filing
MR or an appeal but my legal analysis is that their motion for recon or the appeal
will just be dismissed for being filed out of time.
REP. BARZAGA. Within what period must the appeal be made?
MR. RONQUILLO. With in 15 days from receipt, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. But according to Prosecutor Resado no notice was given
to him.
MR. RONQUILLO. It was sent to his former address, which address is
contained in the records of the case, and which address he used in all his
pleadings. It was his fault that he did not give us a notice of change of address
when he moved out of that residence, Your Honor.
So I believe that our notice to him binds him.
REP. BARZAGA. Did you send… Do you have any evidence to show that a
copy of that decision was sent to the address of Prosecutor Resado appearing in
your records?
MR. RONQUILLO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. For the record, could you please state the address?
MR. RONQUILLO. Yes, Your Honor, we have the return card.
REP. BARZAGA. What’s the address, could you please state us the address
only?
MR. RONQUILLO. Your Honor, the address is no. 32 V. de Vera St., San
Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, Mr. Resado, you have read the address mentioned
by Atty. Ronquillo. Do you confirm that at that time that appeal was made by
Tourism Manager Kua you were residing at that address?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your honor, but I already left that address since about 6
years ago.
REP. BARZAGA. And as a lawyer you know the fact that whenever there is
a change of address insofar as your pleadings are concerned, you normally file a
notice of change of address in order that the records of the case could be
forwarded to your new address. Do you agree on this statement?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your honor, but I said earlier that I am no longer
interested in that case, because I resigned in 2005, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, if you are not interested in that case how come right
now you even stated before us that you are interested to appeal on that case? Is
it not a fact that your statement now is inconsistent with what you have said 30
minutes ago?
MR. RESADO. Because it is only a week that I have learned of that
decision, Your Honor, and it may have adverse effect on me especially the
payment of back wages, they might file a complaint of civil complaint for
collection of that back wages that they have given to me, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Now, when you were dropped off from the rolls of
employees of PTA, did you stop working in the PTA?
MR. RESADO. That is correct, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And when an order for reinstatement was issued by the
Civil Service Commission Region IV, you demanded from the PTA that you be
reinstated because of that decision, is that correct?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your honor, it’s correct?
REP. BARZAGA. And aside from demanding your reinstatement, you also
demanded for your back wages and in fact, you received your back wages.
MR. RESADO. That is correct, Your Honor, because the Civil Service-NCR
integrated in their order of return to work the order also to PTA to pay my back
wages, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, you are a lawyer; we’re talking of finality of
judgment. As a matter of fact, right now, your resolution of dismissal is not yet
final, do you agree with me, because it is subject of automatic review?
MR. RESADO. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Insofar as the decision of Civil Service Commission-NCR is
concerned, which provide for your reinstatement as well as the back wages, was
it already final and executory at the time you demanded for your reinstatement
and for the payment of your back wages?
MR. RESADO. Pending appeal, Your Honor, it was immediately executory
that is the reason why I was reinstated back to my work and my back wages was
also paid.
REP. BARZAGA. Was there any order coming from the Civil Service
Commission-NCR that that decision is immediately executory?
MR. RESADO. I cannot recall if there was a specific order itself, Your
Honor, but in that decision itself, it was stated at the dispositive portion that,
“The PTA is hereby ordered to reinstate Resado back to work”…(interrupted)
Resado has to refund the back wages demanded from PTA due to the
reversed CSC decision
REP. BARZAGA. Yes, we know that because that is the decision. The
trouble is that decision is not yet final and executory. So we want to know from
the Civil Service Commission, considering that they have the entire records of the
case as to whether or not the reinstatement as well as the payment of back
wages of Resado in this particular case is legally in order, and, second, whether
or not from the records there is an order ordering PTA to reinstate Resado and
to pay back wages.
MR. CESAR BUENAFLOR (Commissioner Civil Service Commission). Mr.
Chairman, the decision of the NCR CSC reinstating Attorney Resado has never
attained finality because that is subject to appeal to the Civil Service Commission.
And, therefore, there was no order coming from the Civil Service Commission to
reinstate him and pay him back wages with authority.
REP. BARZAGA. So, in short, when Resado demanded for his
reinstatement as well as the payment of back wages to the PTA, that’s not valid,
that’s not a valid demand.
MR. BUENAFLOR. Yes, Sir, that was premature.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, considering that right now you have reversed the
decision and considering further that Resado has been paid his back wages, what
would be…what would happen to the back wages considering that you uphold
the dismissal, determination or dropping off from the rolls of Prosecutor Resado?
MR. BUENAFLOR. Mr. Chairman, the matter of payment of the back wages
or refund is no longer within the hands of the CSC. It is between the PTA and
Attorney Resado.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, if PTA would consult you how to go about it without
violating the Civil Service Law, what would be your answer?
MR. BUENAFLOR. Since we are an independent commission, Mr.
Chairman, we will tell them that we will not dip our fingers on the case.
REP. BARZAGA. You will not?
MR. BUENAFLOR. Dip our fingers on the case. Meaning….
REP. BARZAGA. PTA, what do you intend to do considering that back
wages were paid to Resado and he is not entitled to back wages as well as to his
reinstatement.
MR. HERNANDEZ. We have already sent letters to Attorney Resado
requiring him to refund the amount he received.
REP. BARZAGA. When?
MR. HERNANDEZ. Yesterday afternoon, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Why only yesterday?
MR. HERNANDEZ. Because we were not also being furnished a copy of
that resolution…the resolution issued.
HEARING ON FEBRUARY 19, 2009
Jorge Joseph invoked his right to remain silent
REP. BARZAGA: Just a clarification, Mr. Chair.
I have read in the newspapers that insofar as the independent fact-finding
committee investigation is concerned, the client of Attorney Fornier, Mr. Jorge
Jordana Joseph, invoked his right to remain silent as well as his right to against
self-incrimination. So much so at the start of the proceedings, I would like to
clarify if Attorney Fornier having the same position as the position which he has
said and manifested before the independent fact-finding body?
Remarks of the Presiding Officer
MR. ANDRESITO X. FORNIER (Counsel of Mr. Jorge Jordana Joseph): Good
morning, Your Honors. I am Attorney Andresito X. Fornier.
Actually, Your Honors, insofar as the position of Mr. Jorge Joseph is
concerned, we have prepared actually two letters which we have addressed to
the Committee. We have requested the Committee Secretary to furnish the same.
Of course whatever…we will abide by whatever action the Committee would
wish to take insofar as our manifestation is concerned.
We will submit respectfully, Your Honors, to whatever the Honorable
Committee would deem best under the circumstances.
REP. BARZAGA: To expedite the proceedings, may we know substantially
what that letter, what the two letters contain?
MR. FORNIER: Well, Your Honors, please, we informed the Honorable
Committee that there is a pending petition for habeas corpus before the
Honorable Court of Appeals and we received only last February 13, the decision.
We…in fact, Your Honor, the newspapers received the decision well ahead of us
and, among others, Your Honor, in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, as stated
in the decision, is that Section 90, Article XI of Republic Act No. 9165, which
states, quote, “The preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall be
terminated within a period of 30 days from the date of filing, according to the
Supreme Court facts…”, I’m sorry, “…to the Court of Appeals and its decision is
not mandatory.” And insofar as Department Circular No. 46 of the DOJ, which
states that, ”The automatic review shall be summary in nature and shall be
completed within 30 days from the receipt of the case record is only an internal
rule.” We…as we have stated in our letter, Your Honor, we disagree, strongly
disagree with the aforesaid decision as we believe that one, the joint inquest
resolution dated December 2, 2008 is already final.
Number two, the respondents including our client, Mr. Jorge Jordana
Joseph, should have been released after the periods stated, and Section 90 of
Article XI of Republic Act No. 9165 at the earliest, and even if we concede, Your
Honor, without admitting that Department Circular No. 46 is legal, it should have
been…our client should have been released, Your Honor, on February 4, 2009.
Because, according to the Secretary of Justice, he received the records only on
January 5, 2009. And furthermore, Your Honor, we believe that the continuing
detention of all the respondents, most particularly our client, is a continuing
violation of the constitutional rights of our clients under Article III, Section 1 of
the Philippine Constitution and violation of the aforesaid cited Articles 124,
125…
REP. BARZAGA: Excuse me, pañero.
MR. FORNIER: …and 126 of the Revised Penal Code.
REP. BARZAGA: So in other words, I have a copy of your letter, in your
letter you are invoking and availing of the constitutional right of your client to
remain silent. In essence, that is the conclusion which you want to convey to this
Honorable Committee?
MR. FORNIER: Including the presumption of innocence which is also well
embedded our Constitution, Your Honor…
REP. BARZAGA: Well, yes, we all know that.
MR. FORNIER: …that remain silent should not be considered, Your Honor,
and taken against Mr. Joseph because the Constitution provide itself, Your Honor,
the presumption of innocence.
REP. BARZAGA: Yes, we know that, Attorney Fornier…
Remarks of the Presiding Officer
REP. BARZAGA: …because we are not trying…
Remarks of the Presiding Officer
REP. BARZAGA: Mr. Chairman, we know that, because we are not trying
the innocence or the guilt of the respondents in this particular case. We are just
having this investigation in aid of legislation. And therefore, if the client of
Attorney Fornier is invoking the constitutional right of his client to remain silent,
then I think, as a lawyer, I think we have to respect that constitutional right
unless there are views coming from the members of this Committee.
Remarks of Congressman Golez and the Presiding Officer
REP. BARZAGA: Just to set the record straight, on the basis of the
manifestation of Congressman Golez, his position and this is also my position
that the constitutional right against self-incrimination would not operate as a
blanket authority for the refusal of our resource persons to answer. If a
particular question has been propounded and the resource person or his counsel
believes that the answer would be self-incriminatory, that would be the right to
invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination. As a matter of fact, no
less than Prosecutor Resado has expressly stated during the independent factfinding commission, he did not invoke his right to self-incrimination because the
questions that were propounded on him are not self-incriminatory.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Is that your understanding of constitutional right against
self-incrimination, that when an official record has been submitted to a
government agency pursuant to the mandate of the law such as the Statement of
Assets and Liabilities, if you will confirm or deny that document, that would
amount to a violation of your right against self-incrimination?
MR. RESADO: Well, partly, Your Honor, Mr. Chairman, because whatever I
comment on this document will give way for me to answer additional questions,
Your Honor.
Interpellation of the Presiding Officer and Responses of Mr. Resado
REP. BARZAGA: But you also know the presumption that evidence
willfully suppressed would be adverse if introduced. Are you not aware that that
presumption might be taken against you?
MR. RESADO: No, Your Honor, because right …(unfinished)
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am a new Member of the House and I would just like to make an official
inquiry. What would be the value, what would be the legal result of a
commitment made by a resource person before this body?
During the last hearing, I asked these questions bluntly to Attorney
Verano, are you willing to present your clients to testify here? He answered
“yes”. Are you aware that any statement that may be given by your client might
be used against them. He said “yes”. I asked him if they will be claiming the right
to self-incrimination. And he answered “no”. What would happen to his
commitment? Because if that would be the attitude of our resource persons,
making promises and commitments and later on changing it after several hours
or several days, then I think, it would be useless to proceed with all these
inquiries.
MR. VERANO: Your Honor.
Remarks of Congressman Golez and the Presiding Officer
MR. VERANO: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Remarks of the Presiding Officer
MR. VERANO: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that was correct. Congressman Barzaga
is accurate when he asked me those questions and I responded in the positive.
However, after consulting with other lawyers connected with this case and also
with the respondents themselves, we are not, Your Honor, we are not blocking
off entirely this Committee. What we are just suggesting is, what has been said
and done already in the other committee to be reproduced in this Committee.
Because there might be a tendency that we could overstep answers, Your Honor.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Just for the record, in order that we can give…
Remarks of Congressman Yap and the Presiding Officer
REP. BARZAGA: …due process to the counsel of Mr. Jorge Joseph, I’m
furnishing Attorney Fornier a copy of the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries
in Aid of Legislation.
Remarks of Congressman Golez, the Presiding Officer, and the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA: And may I also…I would like to have a confirmation from
Attorney Fornier as to whether or not the statement of Mr. Joseph that he is
invoking his right to remain silent was pursuant to the advice of his lawyer.
MR. FORNIER: Your Honor, my advice was…before I start, Your Honor, I
would like to state that I have the highest respect for this Committee including
the Chairman, the Acting Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and all its Members. In
fact, I have the very highest, very high…highest respect for the Members of the
House of Representatives, my family having been, at one time or another, also
been Members of this august House. And though I would like to advise my client
to answer the questions, I have, however, another master, master, a master
higher than myself and that master is the law and the Constitution. I understand,
Your Honor, why Congressman Cuenco is citing the case of Arnault. But in the
case of Arnault, Your Honor, there was no criminal case, no pending criminal
case, no pending case before the Court of Appeals. I would honestly, with all due
respect to a senior lawyer, also from the sale law school, that that Arnault case
cannot legally apply insofar as this case is concerned. I have stated very clearly,
Your Honor, in letters which we have furnished the Honorable Members of this
Committee, that we are going to question the decision of the Court of Appeals
that the resolution of the Department of Justice is not yet final. We have cited,
Your Honor, Section 90. Your Honor, the very law itself states that the decision or
the inquest resolution is already final. The Rules of Court, Your Honor, states that
it is also final. Joint Circular…Department Circular No. 46 states that it is also
final because, Your Honors, if Your Honors please, with all due respect, Your
Honor, that the Secretary of Justice was supposed to rule on the petition for
review within 30 days from the date of the records. No, Your Honor. He said
before the same Committee that he received the records on January 5, thus he
had only until February 4. It is now February 19, Your Honor. Thus, we would
like to state, Your Honor, to avoid any possible conclusion that Mr. Joseph has
waived his legal right to pursue any judicial and legal actions insofar as the
resolution, as well as the decision of the Court of Appeals, we are constrained to
inform, Your Honor, and reluctantly, Your Honor, but I said my master is the
Constitution, that upon our advice he is invoking his constitutional right under
Article III, Section 12, paragraph 1, to remain silent. Said right to remain silent is
likewise predicated on Mr. Joseph’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent
under Article III, Section 4, paragraph 2 of the Philippine Constitution which has,
in our legal opinion, Your Honors, already ripened into a clear and conclusive
presumption and declaration of innocence as PDEA has not overcome a good
etiquette, said presumption in the preliminary investigation. I would like, Your
Honor, to respect, Your Honor, the mandate of this Honorable Committee but the
Constitution prevents me from doing so. My master is the law, Your Honor, with
all due respect.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much,
Congressman Crisologo.
Well, this is a follow-up to the inquiry of Congressman Golez. According to
you, you have a medical certificate regarding…reflecting the contusions which
Mr. Richard Brodett suffered. Can I see that medical certificate?
I have the entire records of the case coming from the Department of
Justice and with the help of Attorney Verano, Mr. Brodett will confirm that this
Annex B is part of the official records of the case and the examination was made
by no less than the physicians of the crime laboratory of Camp Crame, Quezon
City, will that be correct?
MR. VERANO: That is correct, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. And you will also agree with me, Mr. chair, that
based on the records of the case, official records of the case, this physical
examination was conducted by the Crime Laboratory of the Philippine National
Police upon the request or memorandum made by Major Ferdinand Marcelino,
per his memorandum, dated September 20, 2008, requesting the Director, PNP
Crime Laboratory Service to conduct a physical and medical examination on the
persons of Richard Santos Brodett and Jorge Jordana Joseph?
MR. VERANO: For the record, sir, that is correct, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: So, these are all parts of the official records of the case
which were considered by Prosecutor Resado in assessing this case?
MR. VERANO: That is correct, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. So in other words, these contusions were never
hidden inasmuch as they were part of the official records of the case?
MR. VERANO: I guess so, Your Honor, yes, it were never hidden.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay.
Mr. Brodett, sinabi mo na noong…base sa iyung affidavit, I (had) a close
look at it. In the opening paragraphs, noong September 19, 2008, mga alas 4:00 o
alas 5:00 ng hapon, naka-receive ka ng text message mula kay Jorge Joseph, tama
ba iyun?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Matatandaan mo ba kung ano ang nakasaad sa text
message?
MR. BRODETT: Sir, I can’t be accurate word for word but it was an
invitation, sir, a friendly invitation to join him.
REP. BARZAGA: It was an invitation based on your affidavit, to an event
which will take palce at Waterhouse, Makati City.
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir, Warehouse.
REP. BARZAGA: Warehouse and not Waterhouse, Warehouse.
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. And did you make any reply?
MR. BRODETT: I’m not sure, sir, but I spoke to him that afternoon over a
phone call already, it wasn’t text anymore, about the same…well, invitation, you
know, inviting me to the event, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And what did you tell him?
MR. BRODETT: I said I would go with him, sir. I was actually planning to
go before his invitation already since I had several friend going to the same
event.
REP. BARZAGA: Would you be able to recall where were you when you
(made) that telephone call to Jorge Joseph?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir, I’m able to recall, I was working at that time at
Mall of Asia, their Expo Center, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And would you be able to recall (at) what time did you
reach your home on September 19, 2008?
MR. BRODETT: It was definitely evening already, sir. I’m quite sure it was
shortly past dinner time, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And when you speak dinner time, you are referring to
what time, 8 o’clock, 7 o’clock, 9 o’clock?
MR. BRODETT: I think it was past 8 o’clock already past maybe 8:30, I’m
not sure.
REP. BARZAGA: So, you were in your house from 8 o’clock in the evening
up to roughly 12 midnight, will that be correct?
MR. BRODETT: That would be a good approximation, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Because according to your affidavit, at around 12:00 p.m.,
12:00 a.m. of that night, September 19, 2008, you received again another text
message coming from Mr. Joseph, do you recall that?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And according to you, in your affidavit, the text message
states that Mr. Joseph was already in front of your house, tama ba iyun? Is that
correct?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. And when you received that text message, what did
you do?
MR. BRODETT: That’s when I went to meet him, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And when you (saw) him, what transpired between you
and Mr. Joseph?
MR. BRODETT: Well, we spoke very briefly, sir. He was expecting na we
would be on our way already to the event but I told them that I could no longer
go with him, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And after that, what happened to Mr. Joseph?
MR. BRODETT: That’s when he went back to the white pick-up, sir, that he
arrived in.
REP. BARZAGA: And how far was that white pick-up from the place were
you and Mr. Joseph conversed?
MR. BRODETT: We spoke di…directly outside my house, sir. And then I…I
would approximate that the white pick-up was about in the…no closer than
the…the further end of the adjacent house, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Roughly, how many meters from the place where you
spoke was that Nissan pick-up parked?
MR. BRODETT: I’m not very good at approximating the meter, sir, but
the…it was some distance cause the…the house…the lots were big, sir,
maybe…I’m…I’m not sure, sir. But there…there was some considerable distance.
REP. BARZAGA: Could it be fifty meters, one hundred meters, five meters?
MR. BRODETT: Maybe under one hundred, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: There are.
MR. BRODETT: Yeah. Somewhere or maybe fifty. Definitely nothing close
to five or ten.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. So after you conversed, Mr. Joseph walked for more
or less fifty to one hundred meters where the Nissan pick-up was parked?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Yes. And according to your affidavit, at that particular
time, your car was parked outside your house.
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Is it usual on your…on your part to park your car outside
your house?
MR. BRODETT: Sir, I usually park the car outside the house if I still expect
myself to be going somewhere shortly after arriving home or if, let’s say, I
arrived home late and no one’s there to help me in opening the gate, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And while Joseph was going to the Nissan pick-up, what
happened?
MR. BRODETT: While he was going back to the vehicle he arrived in, air, I
was organizing my things in my car since I had left several of my things from
work inside and that…that’s when Jorge Joseph entered the pick-up and he made
a u-turn and left, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: While you were at your car, meron…did you see anything
unusual insofar as Mr. Joseph is concerned?
Brodett witnessed the interception of Joseph’s car
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir, that’s when the white pick-up that Jorge Joseph
was riding in was violently intercepted by white Sedan. I think it was a Mazda,
I’m not sure.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, before that interception by the…by another vehicle
of Nissan…of the Nissan pick-up, what did you see, if any?
MR. BRODETT: Of Jorge Joseph, sir?
REP. BARZAGA: Yes.
MR. BRODETT: I’ve…I didn’t really see him. I just…I saw him walk back to
the vehicle and that…that’s all I could say after that I was busy collecting my
things.
REP. BARZAGA: Did you see any person aiming his gun at Jo…at Mr.
Joseph?
MR. BRODETT: No, not at that time, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Not at the time. At the time which you have mentioned,
you were at your car?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir, I was standing on the driver’s side of the car
reaching in trying to organize my things, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And what unusual thing did you see to be exact or
nothing unusual?
MR. BRODETT: Nothing unusual, sir, until the…the car was intercepted.
That…that definitely was far from normal.
REP. BARZAGA: Do you want to impress (to) us that the first unusual
thing which you saw on that night of September 19 was the intercepting of the
Nissan pick-up?
MR. BRODETT: Yeah…yes, sir, that…that was the most striking…the first
striking event of that evening out of the…out of normal.
REP. BARZAGA: No unusual thing preceded that act?
MR. BRODETT: No, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, did you see any person aiming any gun on Mr.
Joseph?
MR. BRODETT: Before they were…
REP. BARZAGA: At any time, before, after, during.
MR. BRODETT: Yes, yes, sir, yes.
REP. BARZAGA: When was that?
MR. BRODETT: We…when they intercepted the pick-up, I saw several men
come down and this is when they dragged Jorge Joseph out of the pick-up, sir.
And from the moment they stepped out of the vehicle, they already had their
weapons.
REP. BARZAGA: Had their weapons. After that, what (else) did you see?
MR. BRODETT: Sir, ‘yun…that…that was when they were roughing him up
already, they pushed him against the car and they made him kneel down on the
streets, sir, facing towards my house away from them at…at gunpoint to the
head, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: You were then standing beside your car?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And how did you feel at (that) time?
MR. BRODETT: I was scared. I thought that they might execute him, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: They might execute (him).
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir, because they, well, from what I see in movies,
that’s what they…they make him kneel down facing away from the guy with the
gun.
REP. BARZAGA: And Mr. Joseph happens to be a friend of yours?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
Brodett drove off in fear
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. And because you (fear) that they might execute
Joseph, did you not shout or ask for help?
MR. BRODETT: Sir, I’ve…I did not shout at that time, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Neither did you run inside your house in order to call the
police or even use your cell phone in order to call the police authorities?
MR. BRODETT: No, no, sir, I did not enter the house.
REP. BARZAGA: So what did you do?
MR. BRODETT: I…I tried to get away, sir, especially when they started
shooting at my back.
REP. BARZAGA: Is there any…at what time did they shoot your back?
MR. BRODETT: Well, they were shooting me from behind, sir, when…this
is shortly after I witnessed them make Jorge kneel down.
REP. BARZAGA: Did you make any action which will invite their attention
that you were watching the event which you (were) witnessing at (that) time?
MR. BRODETT: I…did see the event, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: But it was dark. It was dark.
MR. BRODETT: Ye…yes, sir, it was dark but there…there were lights, sir. I
mean, it was evening but we have streetlights.
REP. BARZAGA: Is it not a fact that you rode your car?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And upon riding the car, you immediately drove your car?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And because of that there was chasing?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir. There…that…that was the initial car chase, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: But your car is in front…is parked in front of your house.
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: As a matter of fact…as a matter of fact, you just came from
your house.
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir. I…I came from inside the house, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And then why did you not enter your house? Do you
think…would you not agree with me that, under the circumstances, it would be
safer on your part to enter your house instead of riding your car and speeding
away which would result into a chase?
MR. BRODETT: Sir, if I may explain. The car was parked in the further end
of the lot of my house. So, if I were to go back inside the house, sir, I would have
to first cross the distance to get to the pedestrian gate which I would have to go
pass the sidewalk and cross the garden and a few steps and then reach the
pedestrian gate, sir, which…which it has an automatic lock after closing it. So,
before I could get in, I would have to sort of tiptoe and reach…trying and reach
over the…the gate and try to twist the lock, sir. And before I…before entering, I
would still be exposed since after entering the gate, we still have this garage
which is quite exposed from outside. And then after that, there are cars parked
there and I would have to go up several steps to reach the front door, sir, which
is very well exposed from the street since it’s elevated, sir, above the…above the
gate, if you could just try to imagine, sir. And upon reaching those front doors, it
was locked, sir, so there would be no way to enter from there. I would have to go
around again towards the garden inside.
REP. BARZAGA: When you started driving your car, was your direction
toward Mr. Joseph or against the direction of Mr. Joseph?
MR. BRODETT: I was driving directly away from them, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Now, you…you don’t know personally the PDEA agents in
this particular case.
MR. BRODETT: I…I’ve met some now, sir. I…I know some.
REP. BARZAGA: But before?
MR. BRODETT: No, sir. I’ve never met any official or agent or anyone from
PDEA, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: So, you don’t have any ill relation or bad relations with
anyone of them considering that you do not know them.
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir, I’ve never had any dealings or anything to do with
them, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, I think that will be all, Mr. Chairman.
Allegedly, there was substitution in the urine sample of Brodett
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Just a follow-up to the question of Congressman Crisologo. When was the
first time, Mr. Brodett, that you came to know the result of that examination that
you are positive for marijuana?
MR. BRODETT: Sir, I cannot give the exact date but…
REP. BARZAGA: More or less.
MR. BRODETT: More or less. Maybe…from the time of the incident, maybe
a week or more, I am not sure. Maybe about a week, I would say a week.
REP. BARZAGA: And how did you react when you found out that the result
of the examination happens to be positive for marijuana?
MR. BRODETT: Well, I was honestly quite surprised but I was not shocked
because, I mean, after everything that has happened to me, that is…that is just a
small bump on the road, as I would say, after everything they have done.
REP. BARZAGA: So it would be a correct impression to say that when you
saw, when you came to know about the result, it is already your impression that
there was substitution insofar as your urine sample is concerned because it is
your belief that if your urine was the one which was the subject of analysis, it will
not turn out to be positive for marijuana.
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, considering the circumstances, did you ask your
lawyer to write a letter to Major Marcelino or to PDEA protesting the results,
stating that based on your belief there has been substitution of your urine
sample because if there has been no substitution, you will no be positive for
marijuana?
MR. BRODETT: We never ask for a letter to be written, sir, but I told them
that there is something wrong here. This whole thing is wrong. We have to fix
this.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, a while ago you stated you have filed cases against
the PDEA for injuries sustained of you…sustained against you. But just for the
record, you have not filed any case involving this alleged substitution of urine.
MR. VERANO: Not yet, Your Honor.
Remarks of the Presiding Officer
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you, thank you. Thank you very much for that
information.
The respondents filed a case against PDEA at the CHR
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Just to clarify one point, Mr. Chairman. I would address
this question to Mr. Brodett.
Well, you mentioned that you were hit with an M4, is that an M4?
Remarks of the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA: Ah, baby armalite, there was a sling, is that correct?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And the sling I suppose, was around the neck of the PDEA
agent who hit you.
MR. BRODETT: I believe so, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Yes, and according to you, you were hit by the butt.
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay, let’s have that demonstration at the time of our
next hearing just to clarify matters so that we will know the orderly flow of
procedure regarding our questioning. I understand that there were cases filed
against the PDEA agents. Just for the record, may we know what are the cases
filed?
MR. LAZARO: Your Honor, we have not received any formal complaint
from among the respondents with respect to the filing of the charges against the
drug operatives who conducted the operation sometime early morning or
evening of September 19, 2008. All that was received by the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency were complaints for violations of Article 124, 125, and 126
of the Revised Penal Code against Director-General Santiago, Major Marcelino
and myself, Your Honors.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, a while ago, Attorney Verano confirmed that cases
were filed regarding the alleged contusion suffered by his client. Can you
enlighten us on this allegation, Attorney Verano?
MR. VERANO: Yes, Your Honor, we have filed with the Commission on
Human Rights about this incident, Your Honor.
PDEA agents will not invoke their right to silence nor self-incrimination
REP. BARZAGA: Just to clarify, so in this particular case, the PDEA agents
are already the accused and considering that you are the accused or the
respondents, in the next scheduled hearing when we ask questions of
you…against…to you, will you be invoking your constitutional right to silence, as
well as your constitutional right (against) self-incrimination?
MR. MARCELINO: No, sir, sasabihin lang po naming ‘yung totoo, sir. Wala
naman kaming dapat itago, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you very much for that information.
Remarks of Mr. Lazaro and the Presiding Officer
Brodett’s parents and a lawyer arrived in PDEA within two hours
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brodett, more or less, would you be able to tell us what would be the
approximate time when you arrived at the PDEA office on that night of
September 19?
MR. BRODETT: I’d…ano po, approximation, no, sir, but I’d say maybe after
one but I…I don’t wanna be later faulted on this. This is just my approximation. I
would like to say na this is not a confident answer.
REP. BARZAGA: More or…more or less 1 o’clock a.m. of September…
MR. BRODETT: Af…after…
REP. BARZAGA: 21?
Remarks of Congressman Biazon
REP. BARZAGA: September 20?
MR. BRODETT: Yeah, after 1 a.m. of September 20.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay, more or less, how many hours have already lapsed
from the time that you arrived at the office of PDEA when your parents arrived at
the PDEA office?
MR. BRODETT: I…I’m not so sure, sir, maybe an hour…
REP. BARZAGA: More or less.
MR. BRODETT: Maybe an hour, may…maybe less, definitely not more
than…I could say definitely not more than two hours, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Not more than two hours.
MR. BRODETT: That’s for certain.
REP. BARZAGA: Well, another question, was there any lawyer who arrived
at the PDEA office in the early morning of September 20?
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: And was that lawyer, your lawyer?
MR. BRODETT: I…I believe my parents ar…arrived with a…
REP. BARZAGA: Lawyer?
MR. BRODETT: …lawyer friend.
REP. BARZAGA: So, it is clear right now that when your parents arrived
there roughly one hour later, (they were) accompanied by a lawyer.
MR. BRODETT: Yes, sir, I believe so. They were refused the entry unless
without the help of the lawyer.
REP. BARZAGA: And because your parents were assisted by a lawyer at
that time, the loyal of…the lawyer, of course, invoked your rights under the
Constitution and PDEA allowed your parents and your lawyer to see you.
MR. BRODETT: I…I believe so ‘coz initially, they didn’t want to…they
didn’t want me to see my parents, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: Thank you very much for that information.
HEARING ON MARCH 2, 2009
A security officer of Ayala Alabang Village testifies
REP. BARZAGA: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ang una ko pong tanong kay Mr. Arvin Ballares. Tiningnan naming ang
records nitong asutong ito at nakita naming sa records na mayroong isang report
coming from Right Eight Security Agency, Incorporated dated September 20,
2008. It is addressed to a certain Mr. Romeo Javier coming from Jose Torrendon
and the subject is the Incident Report, Re: Buy-Bust Operation by PDEA against
the alleged suspects Mr. Jorge Joseph, Patrick Elgierre and Tommy Brodett. At
dito sa report na ito ay mayroong pangalan na nakalagay Arvin Ballares at sa
ibabaw ng pangalang Arvin ballares ay mayroong pirma. So I would ask this
question to Mr. Ballares, ikaw ba ang nakapirma sa report na ito?
MR. ARVIN BALLARES (Security Officer, Right Eight Security Agency,
Ayala Alabang Village): Opo, Your Honer.
REP. BARZAGA: Honor.
MR. BALLARES: Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: At nakalagay rin doon Assistant Detachment Commander
ka. Totoo ba na Assistant Detachment Commander ka?
MR. BALLARES: Yes, Your Honer.
REP. BARZAGA: Puwede mo nang alisin yung “Your Honer”. Gaano
katagal…gaano katagal ka nang Assistant Detachment Commander sa Ayala
Alabang?
Remarks of Congressman Golez
MR. BALLARES: Ah, almost 6 months, Your…
Remarks of Congressman Golez
REP. BARZAGA: Gaano katagal ka nang Assistant Detachment Commander
sa Ayala Alabang?
MR. BALLARES: Six…almost 6 months na po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Thank you very much. Very good.
At bilang Detachment Commander, alam mo ang nakalagay sa report na
ito, totoo ba iyon?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Unang-una, nakalagay rito na mga alas 11:25 ng
gabi noong September 19, 2008, dumating ang mga PDEA agents sa pangunguna
ni Jerry Bangsal. At ayon nga sa inyong tes…ayon nga sa iyong testimonya kanina,
sinabi mo na sila ay piniresenta ang mga dokumneto regarding their operation.
At dito sa dokumentong ito, ni-refer mo sila kay Mr. Jose Torrendon. Tama ba
iyon?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: At pagkatapos noon, in-endorse mo sila sa mga…to the
security office ng inyong security agency, tama ba iyon?
MR. BALLARES: Hindi po, Your Honer, kasi security coordinator po, hindi
security agency.
REP. BARZAGA: Security office ng inyong security agency. Is that correct
or wrong?
MR. BALLARES: Hindi iyon po security agency.
REP. BARZAGA: To the security office of what?
MR. BALLARES: Of Ayala Alabang.
REP. BARZAGA: Of Ayala Alabang. Noon bang in-endorse sila sa security
office ng Ayala Alabang, kasama ka ba nila?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. At na-witness mo ang pangyayari doon sa loob ng
security office ng Ayala, Alabang?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Ano ang nangyari roon?
MR. BALLARES: Pina-xe…kinuha po ni SO de Pedro ang Mission Order at
saka pina-xerox.
REP. BARZAGA: So, sa madaling sabi, yung security office na si SO de
Pedro, siya ay sa security office ng Ayala Alabang Village Association at hindi siya
empleyado o kawani ng inyong security agency, tama ba iyon?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, ibang…iabng security…sa internal access control na
po sila, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Internal access. Sa madaling sabi, for our knowledge and
information, although kayo ang security agency, bago mo sila papasukin sa loob
ng Ayala Alabang, kinakailangang dumaan pa sila sa security office ng Ayala
Alabang sa pangunguna ni Security Officer de Pedro, tama ba iyon?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Gaano katagal silang kinausap ni Security Officer de
Pedro?
MR. BALLARES: Almost…seconds lang po kasi may tumawag agad na
operatives doon, almost seconds lang po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Ano sabi ni Mr. de Pedro?
MR. BALLARES: Wala na pong may nasabi si Mr. de Pedro kasi pina-xerox
po yung Mission Order doon. Naghintay po yung PDEA agent doon sa security
office ng Ayala Alabang.
REP. BARZAGA: Saang lugar yung security office ng Ayala Alabang, for the
benefit of my colleagues?
MR. BALLARES: Sa loob po, sa Narra, sa Narra Street.
REP. BARZAGA: Gaanong kalayo iyon mula doon sa lugar na kayo ay nagusap ng mga grupo ng PDEA papunta sa security office ng…ni Mr. de Pedro?
MR. BALLARES: Mga, more or less, two kilometer, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Sa madaling sabi, sumakay kayo sa sasakyan papunta sa
security office ni Mr. de Pedro?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Ilang sasakyan ang inyong ginamit?
MR. BALLARES: Tatlong (3) sasakyan, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: At sabi mo, noong nandoon na kayo sa Security Office,
mayroong tumawag?
MR. BALLARES: Mayroon po tumawag, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Saan tumawag, sa landline o sa cellphone?
MR. BALLARES: Sa cellphone po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Sino ang tinawagan? Ikaw ba ang tinawagan?
MR. BALLARES: Si Captain Bangsal po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Nalaman mo ba kung ano ang impormasyon na ibinigay
sa cellphone ni Captain Bangsal?
MR. BALLARES: Hindi ko po nalaman kung anuman ang impormasyon
doon, Mr. Chairman, pero isa lang ang sinabi ni Captain bangsal sa akin – na
tawagan ‘yong gate, at saka sinabi niya sa akin na-entrapped ‘yong sasakyan na
L200 Frontier doon sa Madrigal Gate.
REP. BARZAGA: Sa Madrigal Gate. Okay. Noong marinig mo ‘yon, anong
ginawa mo at saka anong ginawa ni Captain Bangsal? Kayo ba ay sumakay sa
inyong sasakyan at nagpuntahan kayo sa Madrigal Gate?
MR. BALLARES: Inutusan ko po ‘yong aking tauhan na si SO Bautista na iassist ‘yong PDEA agent. Ay, ang una ko pong ginawa ay tinatawagan ko ‘yong
Mardigal Gate through radio communication na i-entrap ‘yong L200 Frontier
doon sa gate. Pagkatapos, inutusan kop o immediately ‘yong aking assistant na si
SO Bautista na i-guide ‘yong mga PDEA agent papunta sa Madrigal Gate.
REP. BARZAGA: Noon bang nag-uusap kayo ni Captain Bangsal, binanggit
na sa iyo ni Captain Bangsal na bukod sa kanyang grupo ay mayroon pang grupo
ng PDEA agents na nag-o-operate noong gabing ‘yon sa loob ng Ayala Alabang?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: At nabanggit ba kung ano ang pangalan nung kabilang
grupo ng PDEA?
MR. BALLARES: Hindi po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Pero hindi sila nagdaan sa Madrigal Gate?
MR. BALLARES: Doon din sila nagdaan as per sinabi ni Jigger nang iniinterview ko siya doon sa Madrigal Gate, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: So, pagkatapos mong mabigyan ng instruction na iintercept sa Madrigal Gate ‘yong Nissan Frontier, anong sumunod na pangyayari?
MR. BALLARES: Sumunod po kami doon…nauna po si SO Bautista,
sinundan ng PDEA agent at saka sumunod din kami doon sa Madrigal Gate.
REP. BARZAGA: Sino ang nauna sa Mad…mas nauna sina Captain Bangsal
sa Madrigal Gate?
MR. BALLARES: Ang nauna si SO Bautista, sinundan ni Captain Bangsal.
REP. BARZAGA: Tapos sumunod ka na rin?
MR. BALLARES: Sumunod na rin ako.
REP. BARZAGA: May sarili kang sasakyan?
MR. BALLARES: May motor po.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Noong nasa Madrigal Gate na, sinabi mo na ano ang
inyong nakita na tinututukan ng baril?
MR. BALLARES: Nang dumating ako sa Madrigal Gate, doon ko nadatnan
ang L200 Frontier na white na sakay si Mark Joseph, si Patrick Al-Khoury…
Remarks of Congressman Crisologo
The PDEA agents confirmed their authority to the respondents
MR. BALLARES: Jorge Joseph, si Al-Khoury at saka si Jigger doon sa
Madrigal Retrieval Exit sa M1. Pagkatapos po, dahil sa nag-clog ang traffic, para
makadaan ang ibang residente, in-assist po naming na ilipat sila doon sa
Madrigal Exit doon sa unahan para may madaanan ng ibang residente. Nang
doon sa M4 – ang tawag naming diyan sa area na ‘yan M4 Madrigal Exit – na
nandoon na inilipat na, dook ko na kinausap si…doon ko na kinausap si Jigger.
Kinuha ko ang mga pangalan, mga pangalan ng mga nasa sasakyan.
Pagkatapos, nang nag-uusap kami ni Jigger, in-interview ko siya kung
saan siya dumaan ng mga oras na ‘yon. Pagkatapos dinukot niya sa kanyang
bulsa – ang suot pa niya ay six-pocket na shorts. Nang nag-uusap kaming dalawa,
idinukot niya sa kanyang bulsa ‘yong sixty (60) pieces of ecstasy. Pagkatapos
nang pumasok siya sa loob ng sasakyan at hinanap niya ‘yong ano, ‘yong
tinatawag na marked money, sabay pinipiga niya, tinututukan niya, sinampal
niya dito at saka nagpapakilala siyang “PDEA agent ito”. Hawak niya ‘yong ano,
hawak niya ‘yong kamay niya, binubugbog niya dito, sinasampal at saka…’yong
lang, Your Honor, hangga’t hindi na niya Makita ‘yong marked money na ‘yon na
hinahanap niya.
Remarks of Congressman Locsin
REP. BARZAGA: No, it’s okay.
Remarks of Congressman Locsin
REP. BARZAGA: Ang tinatanong ni Congressman Locsin ay: Totoo ba o
sigurado ka na sinabi ni Jigger na siya ay isang PDEA agent doon sa mga
suspects?
MR. BALLARES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, kasi hinanap ko po ‘yong kanyang
PDEA ID nago siya nagpakilalang PDEA agent. Kasi in-assure ko po talaga na siya
ay PDEA agent.
Remarks of Congressman Locsin
REP. BARZAGA: That’s not the question. The question is, sinabi ba ni
Jigger na siya ay isang PDEA agent doon sa mga suspects, doon sa ating mga
iniimbestigahan ngayon?
MR. BALLARES: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Paano ang pagkakasabi ni Jigger?
MR. BALLARES: Ipinapakita niya ‘yong kanyang ID. Ginaganun niya sa
mukha ni ano, “PDEA agent ito. Huwag kang pumalag. Ilabas mo ‘yong marked
money.”
Remarks of Congressmen Locsin, Golez and Crisologo
The security officer did not include certain significant details in his report
REP. BARZAGA: Can I continue, Mr. Chair?
Comments of the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA: Ang sinabi mo kanina si Captain Bangsal ang nakipagcoordinate sa iyo. Pagkatapos noong nasa Security Office na kayo, mayroong
tawag kaya umalis ang mga PDEA at tinawagan mo ang mga security agent mo na
mag-abang sa Madrigal Gate. Si Jigger ay hindi mo kasama nang nag-coordinate
sa iyo ang PDEA mula sa Madrigal Gate hanggang sa Security Office, hanggang
Makita mo siya sa Madrigal Gate, ‘yong tinatawag mong M4 Gate. Tama ba ‘yon?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Noong umalis kayo sa Security Office pabalik sa Madrigal
Gate, sina Captain Bangsal ba ay nagpunta sa Madrigal Gate?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Nang dumating roon sa Madrigal Gate, nandoon na
rin…nauna ang grupo ni Captain Bangsal?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Yon namang grupo ni Jigger, mas nauna ba sa inyo, mas
nauna kay Captain Bangsal o basta dinatnan mo na lang doon si Jigger?
MR. BALLARES: Nadatnan ko na lang po doon si Jigger, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Gaano karami ang kasama ni Jigger na PDEA agents?
MR. BALLARES: Marami na po silang naka-deploy doon sa Madrigal Gate,
Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Noong sinabi mo ‘yong ginagawa ni Jigger na tinututukan
ng baril, pagkatapos sinabi mo inilabas din ni Jigger ‘yong sixty (6) ecstasy at
sinasabi mo rin hinahanap ni Jigger ‘yong marked money. Totoo ba ‘yon?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Ang ipinagtataka ko lang, and this is the common
observation of an ordinary person, importante itong mga bagay na ito, hindi ba?
‘Yong panunutok ng baril sa leeg, ‘yong pagpapakita ni Jigger ng 60 ecstasy, bakit
hindi mo isinama dito sa report mo? Bakit hindi mo isinama sa iyong report na
kasama nitong records nitong asunto dito sa Exhibit E?
MR. BALLARES: Napasama po ‘yan, Mr. Chairman, dito po sa remarks ko
na nakalagay na 60 tablets of ecstasy. Sa number 8 po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Number 8. Hindi ko nakikita.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay, ang sinasabi ko itong report mo na ito, it is dated
September 20. Ang pangyayari nangyari ng gabi ng September 19. Iyong
September 20, iyon ang sinasabi natin na sariwa pa sa ating alaala ang
pangyayari and therefore, reasonable men would expect na iyong mga
substantial na nangyari, iyong mga importante, kasama dito sa report mo ng
September 20, the following day. Pero hindi kasama rito, sa halip ay kasama
doon sa report na ginawa ninyo noong September 24 at ito ang sinasabi sa ating
husgado na pag medyo iba na ang later report, that can be considered as an
afterthought.
Kaya ang una kong tanong, importante ito? Sinabi sa iyo, inilabas
animnapung ecstascy tablets an gaming nakuha, nasaan ang boodle money,
tinututukan sa leeg. And as Assistant Detachment Commander whose obligation
is to provide an incident report, hindi ba mahahalaga itong sinabi mo ngayon?
Mahalaga o hindi?
MR. BALLARES: Mahalaga, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Mahalaga. Kaya kung mahalaga, bakit hindi mo sinabi
doon sa report mo noong September 20, the following day?
MR. BALLARES: Ang inilagay ko lang po sa report ko, Mr. Chairman, ang
pinakaimportante po na ang mga procedure po na ginawa namin doon sa loob ng
Ayala Alabang.
REP. BARZAGA: May baril ba? O sige…
Remarks of Congressman Crisologo and Responses of Mr. Ballares
Allegedly, a security officer was threatened by a PDEA agent
REP. BARZAGA: Bakit siya nagmamakaawa?
MR. BALLARES: Kasi po tinututukan siya at saka sinasaktan ni Jigger.
REP. BARZAGA: At base sa iyong narration ngayon, base sa iyong sinabi,
tingin mo hindi tama itong ginagawa ni Jigger?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Wala ka bang ginawa para awatin sila, para sabihin, “O,
Mr. Jigger, ako Detachment Commander dito sa Ayala Alabang, hindi tama iyong
ginagawa ninyo ngayong gabi.”
MR. BALLARES: Natatakot po kami, Mr. Chairman, kasi po tinututukan
niya nga iyong isa kong kasama na, ”Wag kayong makialam, PDEA ito.”
REP. BARZAGA: Ah, okay. So there was a threat against your companion.
Ano ang pangalan ng iyong companion na tinakot?
MR. BALLARES: Si SO Bautista po ang makapagsabi niyan, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Nagawa ba kayo…hindi mo rin sinabi rito sa iyong
narrative report na tinatakot ang iyong kasama, tama ba iyon?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. At hindi rin kayo nag-file ng anumang asunto for
grave threats against PDEA agents?
MR. BALLARES: Hindi na po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Bakit hindi?
MR. BALLARES: Binabalewala na lang po namin, Mr. Chairman.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Just a follow-up, Mr. Javier.
Bilang head nina Ballares, hindi mo na kino-confront ang iyong mga
guwardiya sa mga maseselang pangyayari katulad nito at imbestigahan mo at
sabihin sa iyo, “Ano ba ang tunay na pangyayari?”, most especially this incident
has occupied the headlines of the newspapers and has been the subject of
congressional inquiry?
MR. ROMEO JAVIER (Head of Security, Ayala Alabang Village): Actually,
Your Honor, after this incident, we had a meeting that following morning and this
information was not divulged to us.
REP. BARZAGA: It was not divulged.
MR. JAVIER: Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA: Just to confirm, ngayon mo lang…sa kauna-unahang
pagkakataon, ngayon mo lamang narinig iyong sinasabi ni Ballares na tinakot o
tinreten (threatened) si Bautista ng mga PDEA agents?
MR. JAVIER: Your Honor, what I heard a while ago was that he was
threatened with a gun.
REP. BARZAGA: Iyong sinasabi ni Ballares ngayon na tinreten
(threatened), pinagbantaan si Bautista, iyong security guard mo ng mga PDEA
agents, ngayon pa lamang ang unang pagkakataon na iyong nalaman at kaya mo
nalaman sapagkat narinig mo sa pagsasalaysay ni Ballares, tama ba iyon?
MR. JAVIER: Yes, Your Honor.
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Let’s go back to your narration, those actual na
pangyayari na iyong nakita. Ang sabi mo kanina, nung bumalik kayo roon sa
Madrigal Gate, para maiwasan na ang commotion at maraming tao, sinabi mo sa
mga…kina Jigger na pumunta sa isang lugar, saan mo sila ni-refer na lugar?
MR. BALLARES: Doon po sa itaas, sa M4. Sa Madrigal Exit po.
REP. BARZAGA: Malapit ba ‘yun sa gate ng Madrigal Exit?
MR. BALLARES: Gate mismo po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: At doon, in-interrogate nina Jigger sina Mr. Joseph?
MR. BALLARES: Pardon po, Mr. Chairman?
REP. BARZAGA: Doon tinanong ni Jigger sina Joseph, doon sa lugar na ‘yun
sa tabi ng madrigal Gate, kung nasaan ang marked money?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Si Captain Bangsal, nandun din?
MR. BALLARES: Wala po doon, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Nasaan si Captain Bangsal? Ang akala ko si Captain
Bangsal kasama mo na bumalik sa Madrigal Gate?
MR. BALLARES: Hindi ko po napansin na doon si Captain Bangsal kasi
nag-deploy na po sila. Marami po silang nag-deploy. Hindi ko siya doon nakita sa
M4.
REP. BARZAGA: Hindi mo na siya nakita?
MR. BALLARES: Hindi ko na po siya nakita.
REP. BARZAGA: Although nung galing kayo sa security office, sabi ni
Captain Bangsal, kaya sila aalis sa security office, papunta sila sa Madrigal Gate
para hulihin ‘yung Nissan Frontier?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman. kasi pagdating ko, seconds ano,
dumating din ‘yung Accord na black na paparating. Kaya nagkawatak-watakpo
sila, Mr. Chairman, dahil may iba po na humabol doon sa Accord. Ang naiwan po
doon si Jigger.
REP. BARZAGA: Ibig mong sabihin, nakita mo ‘yung Honda Accord sa may
Madrigal Gate?
MR. BALLARES: Nakita ko po na galing sa Yakal na papunta sa ano. Doon
na po nagkawatak-watak ‘yung tropa nila. Naiwan po doon si…
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Nakita mo ‘yung Honda Accord galing sa Yakal
Street. Papunta saan?
MR. BALLARES: Lalabas po sana ng Madrigal kaso lang nag-divert siya
doon papunta sa may Anahaw.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. ‘Yun bang takbo ng Honda Accord mabilis o
mabagal?
MR. BALLARES: Hindi naman masyadong mabilis. Katamtaman lang po.
REP. BARZAGA: May sumusunod bang sasakyan doon sa Honda Accord?
MR. BALLARES: Pardon po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Meron bang sumusunod na sasakyan doon sa Honda
Accord?
MR. BALLARES: Hindi ko na po napansin, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Hindi mo na napansin. ‘Yung Honda Accord galing sa
Yakal, saan papunta?
MR. BALLARES: Sa Anahaw po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Sa Anahaw. Pagkatapos sa Anahaw, saan tumuloy?
MR. BALLARES: Hindi ko na po napansin, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Hindi mo na nakita ‘yung Honda Accord sa Madrigal Gate
noong gabing ‘yun?
MR. BALLARES: Dumaan lang po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Noong dumaan ‘yung Honda Accord, nasaan ka?
MR. BALLARES: Nandun po sa Madrigal Exit, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Dumaan sa Madrigal Gate palabas ng Ayala Alabang?
MR. BALLARES: Sa loob pa po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Pero papunta sa Madrigal Gate?
MR. BALLARES: Papunta sana doon sa Madrigal Gate kaso lang nag-divert
papunta sa Anahaw.
REP. BARZAGA: Ah, nag-divert. Sa madaling sabihin, nang nagdivert,
pumihit. Hindi dumiretso sa Madrigal Gate?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, kasi hindi siya makalabas doon dahil may
nakaharang na doon, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Sa madaling sabi, kaya pumihit sapagkat ayaw dumaan
nuong black Accord doon sa Madrigal Gate, meron nang-aabang na mga PDEA
agents?
MR. BALLARES: Opo, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Noong pumihit, meron bang kasunod na sasakyan?
MR. BALLARES: Hindi ko na po napansin, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Hindi mo rin napansin kung meron sumunod na
sasakyan. O, noon naming nag-uusap doon sa Madrigal Gate sina Jigger at saka
nina Mr. Joseph, anong nangyari, bukod doon sa sinabi mo kanina na hinihingi
‘yung marked money, na tinututukan ng baril sa leeg, na ipinakita sa iyo ‘yung 60
ecstasy tablets, ano ang nangyari? Paano natapos ‘yung pag-uusap nila roon?
MR. BALLARES: ‘Yun lang po, Mr. Chairman. Iniwan ko na po sila roon.
Pumunta na ako doon sa opisina kasi papalabas…nagsabi na po si Jigger na
dadalhin na po nila ‘yung subject nila sa kanyang headquarters.
REP. BARZAGA: Noong sabihin ni Mr. Jigger na dadalhin na ‘yung subject
nila sa headquarters, anong ginawa mo? Nilagay mo ba sa blotter ‘yun, pinapirma
sila or anything being the assistant detachment commander?
MR. BALLARES: Nagmamadali na po silang papalabas sa Ayala Alabang,
Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: Sa madaling sabi, for the benefit of everybody, most
especially the residents of the Ayala Alabang, kaya nagmamadali ang mga law
enforcement agencies like in this particular case, hindi mo na bina-blotter, hindi
mo sila pinapipirma?
MR. BALLARES: Hindi na po, Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA: I think that would be all because marami pa sa ating
kasama ang gusto pang magtanong.
HEARING ON MAY 5, 2009
BOI has been alerted on the Subic drug case suspects
REP. BARZAGA: So we have to clarify that with PASG (Presidential AntiSmuggling Group) because PASG, they are only after articles which are being
brought to the country without the lawful duties and taxes being paid and that
becomes smuggling. But when you are talking of (a) prohibited article being
brought to the country that is illegal per se and therefore, I think, when it comes
to drugs, it should be the PDEA.
Well, second question, without jeopardizing your ongoing investigation,
may we ask General Santiago, Mr. Chairman, up to what extent has the
investigation been made by PDEA regarding this case?
MR. DIONISIO SANTIAGO (Director General, Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency): As a matter of fact, Your Honor, we want a case to be filed against the
lawyer also, because the lawyer of Robert Lee promised that he will bring the
suspect to us. If there is no case against the suspect, then we cannot do anything
against the lawyer.
But we have discovered already the real names. They have been put…a
hold order has been put on alert…a mission order has been placed already by the
Bureau of Immigration.
Remarks of the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA: Well, under the present circumstances, Mr. Chairman, is
the PDEA being prevented by any agency or by any existing law to file the case
which it intends to file?
MR. SANTIAGO: No, Your Honor. As a matter of fact, Attorney Lazaro…the
case has been dismissed but we were told by the people from the Solicitor
General’s Office that it is not final because it can still proceed as a case.
Attorney, pakikwan mo lang.
REP. BARZAGA: Just to clarify first, Mr. Chairman.
Remarks of the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA: We have here a copy of the resolution dated June 20,
2008 signed by Prosecutor Melani Bañares and approved by City Prosecutor
Emilie Pe Delos Santos. Is this resolution being referred to where the case
against Mr. Anton Ang was dismissed by the Prosecutor’s Office?
MR. LAZARO: No, sir. If you would notice, there were two (2) resolutions
issued in that case. The one involving the filing of a case against Anton Ang,
Estrella Ang, and Manuel Olino were initially released and thereafter, the case
against Robert Lee were subjected to…were scheduled for preliminary
investigation. This is the one that was dismissed by the prosecutor.
REP. BARZAGA: But we don’t have a copy of that resolution. Because what
we have right now is a resolution, I made only a very fast reading, and I noticed
that the prosecutor has demanded the filing of cases against certain persons.
MR. LAZARO: Sir, we do have. We included that in the case folders which
we submitted to this body, sir.
REP. BARZAGA: That’s why, is this the one?
MR. LAZARO: Sir, there are two (2) resolutions. If that is the case against
Anton Ang…
PDEA will reveal the personalities involved in the drug cases in an
executive meeting
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
Well, another point. Based on our experience in the investigation of the
Alabang controversy, our good friend, General Santiago, has mentioned a while
ago (that) there are well-known personalities including politicians. And knowing
politicians, they would be asking General Santiago to name these politicians. Will
the PDEA be able to name them assuming that there would be a demand coming
from our fellow politicians?
Remarks of the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA: Okay.
MR. SANTIAGO: We will so that you will be helping us some more, sir. We
will open everything to Congress on executive session.
Remarks of the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
HEARING ON MAY 12, 2009
Anton Ang claimed that the boxes contained sensitive computer parts
REP. BARZAGA. To begin with, the whole controversy regarding this
inquiry started when SBMA port sentinel discovered on May, 25, 2009 at around
8:30 pm a Mitsubishi Outlander SUV located with several boxes coming from this
vessel F/B Shun Fa Xing, is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
MR. ARMAND ARREZA
Authority). Yes, Your Honor.
(Administrator,
Subic
Bay
Metropolitan
REP. BARZAGA. And when accosted, the driver of that Mitsubishi
Outlander failed to show the appropriate documents and because of his failure to
show the documents, the case was referred to the SBMA Law Enforcement
Department, is that also correct?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. When it was referred to the Law Enforcement
Department, authorities from Subic asked for the opening of these packages but
the driver whose identity was established as Anton Ang refused to open the
boxes because he is claiming that it contains sensitive computer parts, is that
also an accurate information?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, it was… his allegation is that… he mentioned that these
are all sensitive computer parts.
REP. BARZAGA. Just for the record, may we know who are the Law
Enforcement Department officers who were present insofar as this statement or
incident took place?
MR. ARREZA. Your, Honor, the port sentinel who were accosted the
Mitsubishi Outlander is Officer Agnasate. The two…
REP. BARZAGA. Well, under the existing law, if there are some suspicion
entertained by SBMA authorities that what is contained in the boxes are possible
illegal articles, does SBMA authorities have the right and authority to compel its
opening for its examination even if there is an objection coming from the alleged
packages?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your Honor, because Anton Ang was able to identify
himself as an officer of Hua Long, a duly registered locator who was also the ship
agent of the vessel and it was upon his claim that the boxes contain sensitive
computer parts that would be damaged if it was exposed. It was on the basis of
his claim that our Law Enforcement Department officers did not open the boxes
after the boxes were sniffed by both bomb dog and our narcotics dog and the
dogs indicated a negative response.
REP. BARZAGA. When Anton Ang claimed that the boxes contained
sensitive computer parts, did Anthony Chua present any document to prove his
allegation that the contents of the boxes happened to be computer sensitive
parts?
MR. ARREZA. Anton Ang, the driver of the vehicle, was not able to produce
documents.
REP. BARZAGA. So, in short, you accepted the words… The Law
Enforcement Division accepted the words of Anton Ang at its face value?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your Honor, and he was given 24 hours to produce the
documents which, when produced, would have to be tallied with the actual
content of the boxes, your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. The following day, May 26, 2008, Anton Ang again
appeared before the Law Enforcement Division of SBMA, is that statement is
correct?
MR. ARREZA. That’s correct, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. More or less, (at) what time did Anton Ang appear at the
Law Enforcement Division Office of SBMA?
MR. ARREZA. Around nine to ten, Your Honor, he appeared the next day,
May 26, Monday.
REP. BARZAGA. And when he appeared, he also requested for the release
of the boxes?
MR. ARREZA. That’s right, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And again Anton Ang was not able to present any
document?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, that’s correct, Your Honor.
The follow-up investigation did not materialize
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. There was also (an) allegation that (the) Seaport
Department NLED also visited the vessel to conduct (a) follow-up investigation,
is that correct?
MR. ARREZA. That’s correct, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. And, Mr. Chairman, would our resource person be
able to identify who where those who conducted a follow-up operation on the
vessel?
Remarks of the Chairperson
REP. BARZAGA: On the 26th, Your Honor.
MR. ARREZA. We can provide the Committee with the identities of those
that conducted follow-up operations, Your Honor. But, as of this point, we don’t
have in it the documents that we have.
REP. BARZAGA. Do you know the head who conducted the operation… a
follow-up investigation on the vessel?
MR. ARREZA. The follow-up investigation on the vessel was conducted by
our Law Enforcement Department and our Seaport Department. The head of our
Seaport Department is Captain Pascual and the officer-in-charge of the Law
Enforcement Department that time was Atty. Hernandez?
REP. BARZAGA. Who?
MR. ARREZA. Atty. Hernandez was the officer-in-charge of the Law
Enforcement Department and Captain Pascual was the head of the Seaport
Department during that time.
REP. BARZAGA. So it would be a fair statement to say that Captain Pascual
and Atty. Hernandez were the ones who led the follow-up investigation on this
vehicle?
MR. ARREZA. No, Your honor. It was their respective personnel on the
ground that conducted the follow-up operations not the heads of the
Departments, respectively.
REP. BARZAGA. And unfortunately up to now, you cannot give the names
of these persons who conducted the follow-up investigation on the vessel?
MR. RAMON O. AGREGADO (Senior Deputy Administrator for Support
Services, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority). Your Honor, I have it with me, on
1300 hours May 26, 2008, it says, our report says, Galaxy 12, so it’s Officer
Bernardo together with Mr. Romeo Renojo, Chief Maritime Security Division of
the SBMA Seaport Department, proceeded and docked 7 and 8 Rivera Piers, SRF,
conducted the follow-up investigation, ocular inspection concerning suspect
Taiwanese fishing boat wherein 8 boxes of possible contraband disembarked.
However, their intentions to conduct investigation inquiry threat turned futile
after there was no person noted present thereat and said boat was also secured
and closed.
REP. BARZAGA. So, in other words, at 1 p.m. of May 26, 2008, although
follow-up investigation was conducted by Seaport and Law Enforcement
Division of SBMA, that investigation did not actually materialize because the
vessel at that time was closed and there was no crew on board, is that accurate?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, in the first place, what’s the reason why you want to
conduct a follow-up operation on the vessel? Do you entertain already the
suspicion that there was a Shabu coming from that vessel?
MR. ARREZA. No, Your honor. We were inspecting if there were additional
cargo in the vessel because declaration was near cargo.
REP. BARZAGA. But at that particular time, when SBMA conducted an
investigation, SBMA was already aware that this cargo taken from the Outlander
came from the vessel, from that questioned vessel?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, but there were some indication that it was shabu, Your
Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So, in other words, considering that there was no
document from the fax it would seem that the vessel was instrumental in case of
smuggling.
MR. ARREZA. Your Honor, this wasn’t smuggling because the goods are all
still within the Freeport zone, they have not yet been removed from the Freeport
Zone.
REP. BARZAGA. So, in other words, is that your appreciation that as long
as the goods are still in the Freeport Zone, even if there are no documents
supporting those goods in the Freeport Zone there is no smuggling yet?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay, we’ll clarify that. So, considering that there was no
person and the vessel is closed. What prudent measures did SBMA take?
MR. ARREZA. Your Honor, they intended to come back, but as I said, the
crew was no longer there.
REP. BARZAGA. When did they come back?
MR. ARREZA. We were unable to board the vessel, Your Honor. No, their
intention to come back to do follow-up investigation. Nonetheless, we are still
waiting for Mr. Ang to produce the necessary documents, as I mentioned during
my opening statement, Mr. Ang was held because of possession of undocumented
cargo not because of any violation of existing laws at that time. So, there was no
basis for the SBMA, at that point in time, to hold Mr. Ang.
REP. BARZAGA. I’ll stop from there.
On the same day, May 27, 2008, at around 4:20 p.m., PASG Task Force as
well as the law Enforcement Division of SBMA opened the eight boxes.
MR. ARREZA. Your Honor, this was happened the next day already, the
27th.
REP. BARZAGA. And the vessel also disappeared the following day, May
27…
MR. ARREZA. The vessel disappeared that… the wee hours of the 27th, yes,
during the morning.
REP. BARZAGA. Was the person of SBMA determined… more or less the
time when the vessel left SBMA?
MR. ARREZA. As mentioned by Captain Pascual earlier, it was believed
between midnight and 6:00 during the… in between the inspection, manual
inspection, conducted by the Seaport Department.
REP. BARZAGA. So, on May 27, that was the first discovery?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your honor. Atty. Hernandez, immediately after the
vessel was discovered to be missing, our Seaport Department informed the
coastguard, and Atty. Hernandez was alerted as well. He immediately summoned
Mr. Ang to explain why the vessel had left without prior clearance. Mr. Ang
wasn’t able to present himself; therefore we had made the decision to open the
boxes in the presence of the Presidential Anti- Smuggling Group, Your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And just for the record, upon the opening, it yielded
shabu with a weight of 81.95 kilograms.
MR. ARREZA. That’s correct, based on the joint inventory conducted by
the PASG and the SBMA it yielded a crystallized substance approximately 81
kilos. It was confirmed the next day by PDEA lab technicians that it was indeed
shabu.
Three more seizures of shabu
REP. BARZAGA. And just for the record, the following day, May 28, two
green leather bags were also recovered at the SRF area?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, SRF area is also where the ship was boarded. Two
leatherette boxes were recovered and brought as well to the PASG Headquarters
where Usec. Villar and I, along with the PDEA, were inspecting the initial eight
boxes.
REP. BARZAGA. And the recovery of this shabu consisted 20.49
kilograms?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Then in the afternoon of May 28, there was also another
vehicle which was inspected?
MR. ARREZA. No, Your honor. Before lunch time we were… a tip came
from us, from a warehouse operator that Mr. Ang had actually stashed away
another van in an adjacent warehouse to Hualong and we immediately sent our
Law Enforcement Department to investigate the vehicle, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Chairman, would you be able to say what was the
result of your investigation?
MR. ARREZA. When the warehouse was opened there was a van
discovered which was found to contain, I believe, sixty boxes which when tested
later on in the afternoon also yielded positive for shabu. We had brought our
narcotics dog and the dog positively identified as well the boxes contain shabu.
REP. BARZAGA. And sixty boxes contained actually 612.22 kilograms of
Shabu?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And it was packed in the same manner as the boxes found
in the Mitsubishi Outlander?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And it was packed in the same manner as the boxes found
in the Mitsubishi Outlander?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Then, on June 7 there was also another seizure of shabu
at SBMA, will that be correct?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your Honor, while our harbor patrol was conducting its
routine inspection to prepare the area for the arrival of the ship, it… so, I believe,
three boxes tied on anchor floating at the ship repair facility area. This is the
same vicinity where the MV Shun Fa Xing was docked.
REP. BARZAGA. And the seizure or discovery shows 30.7 kilograms of
shabu?
MR. ARREZA. That’s correct, Your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. My additional Inquiry, Mr. Chairman, there were vehicles
involved in these discoveries. (Was) the Law Enforcement Division of SBMA able
to track down who are the registered owners of these two vehicles?
MR. ARREZA. Mitsubishi Outlander was registered to Mr. Ang, the van was
registered to a Mr. Labandelo. Mr. Labandelo was also the driver of the van and
was consequently arrested by operatives of the PASG, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. With what corporation is Mr. Labandelo connected?
MR. ARREZA. He is self-employed, his job is to provide… to rent-out his
van and provide transportation services.
REP. BARZAGA. I’ll stop from here, Mr. Chair.
Subic Freeport is separate from the Philippine Customs territory
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Just one follow-up question. Well, actually, we are
conducting this investigation in aid of legislation for the purpose of finding out
what would be the appropriate legislation to address similar circumstances. An
interesting issue was brought out by Mr. Arreza. Well, according to him, wala
pang smuggling kapag hindi pa nailalabas ang mga goods outside the premises of
SBMA. May we ask the reaction or opinion of Usec. Villar regarding the
allegation?
MR. ANTONIO VILLAR, JR. (Undersecretary/Head, Presidential AntiSmuggling Group). Your Honor, if we find out that the goods are smuggled or
there is a manifest, then we can, right there and then, arrest them, Your Honor,
and hold the goods already.
REP. BARZAGA. So, in other words, kahit na hindi pa lumalabas sa
premises ng SBMA ang mga imported articles, you have already the right to seize
them. In other words, there is smuggling. Will that be a correct appreciation?
Because we want to be clarified on this insofar as the mandates of existing laws
are concerned.
MR. VILLAR. Yes, Your Honor. But, there’s… inside the Subic premises or
Free Port to… as long as they don’t leave the premises, they cannot be
apprehended, Your Honor. But there are some who uses this as transshipment
point. So they transshipped to another place wherein they can easily divert that.
That’s what you called diversion, Your Honor. That’s technical smuggling already.
REP. BARZAGA. So, in short, these are the impossible situations if we
follow the interpretation of SBMA. Number one, para magkaroon ng jurisdiction
ang PASG, kinakailangang mag-abang muna kayo sa gate ng SBMA so that it will
be outside the SBMA.
MR. VILLAR. That’s the procedure there, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. And also if there would be transshipment from
Subic to a local port within the Philippines, doon sa port n’yo ho ba aabangan so
that there will be no smuggling already?
MR. VILLAR. Yes, Your Honor. The other day only, Your Honor, may nahuli
na kami diyan nagta-transship ng mga telephone parts saka mga – tawag dito –
mga laptop eh dapat sa loob lang iyon e nahuli na namin sa labas, Your Honor.
Naka-hold na sa amin sa yardang iyon, Your honor
REP. BARZAGA. Well, just to clarify, Mr. Chairman, may I request Mr.
Arreza, more or less, to specify what the provision is in the law which provides
that if the goods have not yet been taken out of the premises of SBMA, there
would be no smuggling so that we can take a second look at that law.
MR. ARREZA. Mr. Chairman, Section 12 (b) Republic Act 7227, which is
the basis “An act accelerating the conversion of military reservation into other
product abuses otherwise known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act
1992.”
Section 12 (b) states and I read: “The Subic Special Economic Zone shall
be operated and managed as separate customs territory ensuring free flow or
movement of goods and capital within into and exported out of the special Subic
Special Economic Zone, as well as provide incentives such as tax and duty-free
importations of raw materials, capital and equipment. However, exportation or
removal of goods from the territory of the Subic Special Economic Zone to the
other parts of the Philippine Territory shall subject to the Customs duties and
taxes under the Customs and Tariff Code and other relevant tax law of the
Philippines.”
So based on the provision on RA 7227, we are considered, by legal fiction,
to be separate from the Philippine Customs territory. So payment of taxes is only
applied to goods when they are removed from the freeport zone, Your Honor.
Illegal drugs are subject to immediate seizure even within Subic Bay’s
premises
REP. BARZAGA. Just to clarify, Mr. Chair. What is the present procedure,
operational guidelines regarding prohibited or illegal drugs within SBMA
premises?
Comments of the Chairperson and Mr. Arreza
REP. BARZAGA. Okay.
MR. ARREZA. Yes, your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Let me ask this hypothetical question. In the event that
there has been confidential information received by PDEA that there are certain
prohibited and illegal drugs within the premises of SBMA, what can PDEA do
with out violating existing laws?
MR. ARREZA. They may seize the goods, Your Honor. If there is a drug,
those drugs are subject to immediate seizure and the perpetrators are subject to
immediate arrest.
HEARING ON MAY 19, 2009
Prosecutor: Upon weighing the evidence, there was no probable cause
REP. BARZAGA. Just one question. I will address my question to the
prosecutors.
Well, in some cases wherein it would appear that a particular corporation
has indeed participated insofar as importation of illegal drugs are concerned,
meaning to say based on the records, that corporation was the one who imported
the prohibited article in the papers, they were the only one who facilitated the
release, the drugs were found in the possession of their employees, in this
particular case, under existing laws, can we not sue the President, the major
stock holder of that corporation? Because of course we know the basic concept of
that corporation cannot be imprisoned because they are juridical persons. And in
the case of the criminal cases, then the President, the managing… the directors,
etcetera, would be the one liable did you consider that… did the prosecutor
consider that angle insofar as this case is concerned, Mr. Chairman?
MS. EMILY DELOS SANTOS (Prosecutor, City Prosecutors Office, Olongapo
City). Mr. Chair, precisely that is the reason why there are two resolutions in this
case. One, the first resolution, dated June 20, 2008, was for the filing with
information against Anton Ang, et al. the second was the dismissal against the
incorporations that you are trying to tell us, Sir. We conducted preliminary
investigation for the incorporators. But after the prosecution has weight the
evidence presented by both PSG and, at times, PDEA was also entering at that
time through Atty. Lazaro, as against the evidence presented by the
incorporators of both Hualong and Anglo Asia, the warehouse, the locator also,
sir as a prosecutor we found no evidence that could link the incorporators,
because the record will show, as it is now being heard in the first case before the
Regional trial Court of Olongapo, Branch 75 there were no board resolution
authorizing Estrella Ong, the wife to file in behalf of the corporation.
Interpellation of the Chairperson and Responses of Ms. Delos Santos
REP. BARZAGA. Just a clarification. In the event that the corporation is
involved, will it not be proper on the part of DOJ to make a legal assumption that
the president or the chief operating officer of that corporation should be held
liable for that criminal case and it will be incumbent on the part of the president
who, based on the record, is the president to prove that he is no longer doing his
duties as president, there has been no board meeting, there has been no
stockholders’ meeting and that the full operations had already been transferred
to another person such as a person similar to the case of Anton Ang?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. Precisely, Mr. Chair, that is why after conducting the
preliminary investigations and after sending subpoenas to all the officers and the
board members that were included in the complaint of the PSG, we conducted
preliminary investigation. As I’ve said, after weighing the evidence presented
before us. It could not even come up to the lowest quantum of evidence for
probable cause.
REP. BARZAGA. Did the incorporators, Mr. Chair, of the corporation filed
their respective counter affidavits?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. Yes, Mr. Chair.
The Subic drug case was not endorsed to PDEA
Later on.
REP. BARZAGA. Just to clarify, we can always rely on the title of the case,
who appears to the complainant, is it the Task Force Subic or is it PASG?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. PASG, Your Honor. And as also, as to the words of
Atty. Llagas, they submitted position papers, the prosecution does not require
position papers. That is their complaint, a complaint by PASG. Not a position
paper.
REP. BARZAGA. Just one question. Mr. Chair. Will PASG… will there be a
legal prohibition to state in the complaint that the complaint is Task Force Subic?
Well, there has been explanation by Atty…
MS. LILIBETH LLAGAS (Representative, Task Force Subic, Presidential
Anti-Smuggling Group). Atty. Llagas, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Atty. Llagas… Llagas that their actions were made
pursuant to the fact that they are members of Task Force Subic. So, my question
is will there be a legal prohibition to state in all the documents in the affidavit
together with the complaint that Task Force Subic happens to be the
Complainant.
MS. LLAGAS. Coming from the prosecutor, Your Honor, none. The problem
is…
REP. BARZAGA. None?
MS. LLAGAS. Yeah, but the problem…
REP. BARZAGA. So, may we know from Atty. Llagas what was the reason,
if any, why she did not indicate the papers, in the affidavit as well as in the
complaint sheet that the complainant happens to be Task Force Subic?
MS. LLAGAS. Your Honor, if you’re going… if we’re going to check the
affidavit of arrest and the amended joint affidavit of arrest, it says there we
always state… ah, we stated there that it’s always PASG-Task Force Subic or
PASGTFS. The caption, Your Honor, is only Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group
because we didn’t…didn’t.
REP. BARZAGA. All right, another question. What would be the materiality
or significance if we put PASG or Task Force Subic, etcetera, regarding this case?
Mayroon bang legal significance na madi-dismiss kung ilagay mo PASG Task
Force Subic or Task Force Subic lamang?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. Your Honor, as long as there is that law enforcement,
anybody can file a case. The problem is the case is never endorsed to PDEA as
mandated by law for them to be the lead agency. That is where the problem lies.
Up to now the case has never been endorsed to him. The Court is not even
recognizing Atty. Lazaro as having personality in this case.
REP. BARZAGA. Just to follow up to that answer, to the prosecutor, do you
think that there would be a better handling of the case and better preparation of
documents had PDEA given the authority to prosecute this case?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. The answer, Your Honor, is… could be answered
best, had they worked together it would have been a stronger case because they
were quarreling.
REP. BARZAGA. May we know the reason, if any, if you know why the two
agencies are quarreling?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. You ask them, Your Honor. They are quarreling. Why
it is that only one agency does not want to endorse the case to them? The case
just came to us because of the complaint filed by PASG. Now, whatever their
differences are, that is their problem.
REP. BARZAGA. May I ask this question, Mr. Chairman, to Prosecutor
Santos? What made you say that the two agencies are quarreling with one
another?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. Your Honor, the documents will show, the minutes…
in our minutes during the preliminary investigation they agreed that they will
file a supplemental affidavit, PASG and Atty. Llagas, Atty. Aurelio and Atty.
Lazaro. But when the day came for them to submit supplemental affidavit or
complaint, thet filed… PASG lawyers find an amended complaint, to which Atty.
Lazaro said this is just… during the fact-finding committee, that he was not
amenable to it. I cannot understand why they were not one, and this true even
during the conduct of preliminary investigation. Your honor please, this is very
important because the two groups of lawyers, Atty. Lazaro and Atty. Llagas and
Atty. Aurelio… Atty. Arugay. I did not have any dealings with him. I told them
during the preliminary investigation, in front of all the parties present, to be fair,
“You better, both of you, come up with good evidence against this incorporators,
or else I will dismiss the case”… I said “o bakit kayo nagtuturuan? See?”
Facts were added to the amended complaint
REP. BARZAGA. Follow-up question, Mr. Chairman, well, you said that
PASG actually filed an amended complaint and for that amended complaint Atty.
Lazaro did not give his conformity. There was objection coming from Atty.
Lazaro. Could you inform us why Atty. Lazaro did not agree to that amended
complaint? And also what were the substantial amendments to the original
affidavit?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. Mr. Chair when the amended complaint was filed.
Atty. Lazaro was there. He signed the minutes. But during the preliminary
hearing on that day wherein the PASG filed the amended complaint without the
signature of Atty. Lazaro, he did not interpose any objection in that hearing.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay, I am a little bit interested with the amended… with
the amendments. What were the natures of the amendments? Was there a
change in the name of the respondents? Were some respondents deleted?
MS. MELANI FAY BAÑAREZ (Assistant City Prosecutor, Olongapo City
Prosecutor’s Office, Olongapo City, Zambales). There are some facts added in
the…
REP. BARZAGA. Some facts added?
MS. BAÑAREZ. Yes. But as to the incorporators, it did not… it just named
the incorporators, nothing else.
REP. BARZAGA. Some facts added? Were some (of the) facts which were
added to the amended complaint strengthened the case or weakened it?
MS. BAÑAREZ. As to the incorporators po, wala namang effect.
REP. BARZAGA. No. you stated that there were additional facts in the
amended complaint.
MS. BAÑAREZ. Additional box…no
REP. BARZAGA. Added facts.
MS. BAÑAREZ. None, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So what was the amendment?
MS. BAÑAREZ. Facts. I said, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Ano nga ang in-amend?
MS. BAÑAREZ. Pag nabasa ninyo po iyon kasi… at that time they… at that
time the PASG…
REP. BARZAGA. So there were additional facts?
MS. BAÑAREZ. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Did those additional facts included in the amended
complaint strengthened the complaint or weakened the case?
MS. BAÑAREZ. Strengthened as to the case of Anton Ang, et al. but not as
to the incorporators.
REP. BARZAGA. There was no allegation insofar as the incorporators are
concerned?
MS. BAÑAREZ. Yes, Your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. But a simple allegation stating that these persons are the
incorporators of the corporation and, therefore, as incorporators they are the
operators or the officers of the corporation and they should be held liable would
already be sufficient.
MS. BAÑAREZ. They just mentioned the names they are the incorporators.
REP. BARZAGA. No allegations regarding the…
MS. BAÑAREZ. No. No… No allegations that these incorporators actively
participated in the importation.
There is only one complaint for four seizures
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Chair, just for a while. I would like to make a
clarification. Well, the Subic case which we are discussing right now covers four
seizures first seizure was on May 25, 2008 at around 8:30 pm. The quantity was
81.95 kilos with a market value allegedly of four hundred ninety-one million.
Was there a specific case filed insofar as the seizure is concerned?
MS. DELOS SANTOS Your honor, the case filed before us by the PASG was
a total of 714.66.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay, just for the record. So there is only one case filed
although it covers different seizures on different on different occasions and on
different places?
MS. DELOS SANTOS Yes,Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So, if that is the allegation… if that is the complaint, and I
think Atty. Llagas would agree with me, if there is only one single complaint with
you as filed, then it is predicated on conspiracy, because if there were no
conspiracy there would be separate case for the seizure. Does the DOJ agree with
this statement?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. No, your honor, because you could not base your
allegation and charges of conspiracy on mere allegations, you have to
substantiate it. Mr. Chairman.
REP. BARZAGA. No, what I am stating here is that we are talking of 745
kilos what I am stating here is that we are talking of 745 kilos, 740. Based on the
complaint affidavit, were these 740 kilos seized in one occasion or on separate
occasions? And as a matter of fact, all the persons who were indicated or who
were initially accused were not in the three places where the seizure happened?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Yes, and, therefore, if there is only one single complaint, it
presupposes that there is a change of conspiracy, and then there will be separate
cases involving different persons. With you agree with that legal assumption?
MS. DELOS SANTOS I beg to qualify, Mr. Chair. Charging conspiracy is
another thing from proving conspiracy.
REP. BARZAGA. So, Okay. Who are the different persons? Do you agree
with me that the complaint is predicted on conspiracy?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. Yes, because that was the endorsement to us, Mr.
Chair
REP. BARZAGA. Yes, so in other words the allegation of PASG is that there
was conspiracy and that is the reason why only case was…why only one case was
filed. Because if there were no conspiracy, then there will be separate cases.
MS. DELOS SANTOS. Mr. Chair, as far as we’re concerned, there was only
one complaint for the total of all the four seizures.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay.
MS. DELOS SANTOS. And there were several respondents.
REP. BARZAGA. Yes.
MS. DELOS SANTOS At different times of the seizure and locations
REP. BARZAGA. Okay.
MS. DELOS SANTOS .Yes, they were trying to file a complaint with
conspiracy, but, as I’ve said, we maintain our stand as prosecutor, the complaint;
we are not bound by their complaint.
REP. BARZAGA. We are not talking about your stand.
MS. DELOS SANTOS. We will be bound by the findings.
REP. BARZAGA. We are not talking about your stand, we are not talking
about your resolution, and we are only talking about the case filed by PASG or
Task Force Subic. Their allegation is predicated on conspiracy because there is
only one single case filed through the seizure were on different time and on
different places.
MS. DELOS SANTOS. Yes, Mr. Chair.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. So we ask PASG, Atty. Llagas, bakit ba isang kaso
lang ang ipinayl nyo? Why not separate cases?
MS. LLAGAS. Sir, first of all, it resulted on only one affidavit of arrest
because this is a result of …these seizure were all the result of one continuous
operation. You’re going to notice, Sir, in the affidavits of arrest, we enumerated
there…
REP. BARZAGA. The first seizure was made on May 25, 2008 at around
8:30 p.m.., 8195
MS. LLAGAS. Yes, Sir, by the SBMA.
REP. BARZAGA. Do you confirm that?
MS. LLAGAS. By the SBMA, Sir.
REP. BARZAGA. Do you confirm that the first seizure was made on May
25, 2005 2008 at around 8:30 p.m., .8 sealed boxes at SRF gate? Do you confirm
that?
MS. LLAGAS. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA Okay. Then another seizure on May 28, floating, 20. 49
kilos. Do you confirm that?
MS. LLAGAS. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Then another 60 boxes, p.m. of May 28, 612 kilos. Yes or
no?
. LLAGAS. Yes.
REP. BARZAGA. Yes.
MS. LLAGAS. Yes. For 612.22, yes.
No case was filed for the June 7 seizure
REP. BARZAGA. Then another 3 boxes covered with black garbage plastic
tight, 30.7 kilos seized on June 7, 2008.
MS. LLAGAS. The last boxes were not included or incorporated in our
complaint affidavit, Your Honor, because these boxes were turned over to PDEA.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. Was there any case filed insofar as this June 7,
2008 seizure is concerned?
MS. LLAGAS. Your Honor, we’re not in a position to answer that but the
PDEA.
REP. BARZAGA. No. As far as you know, so, no case was filed against this
30.7? Insofar as Task Force Subic is concerned, you don’t have any knowledge.
You did not file any case?
MS. LLAGAS. We immediately turned over it to PDEA.
REP. BARZAGA. No. You answer the question. You did not file a case…
MS. LLAGAS. We did not file a case for that seizure, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Why not?
MS. LLAGAS. Because the PDEA said that they will be the one to file cases
for that.
Sir, may I just clarify that the only reason we filed the case for the first
seizure was because we just wanted to meet the deadline for the purposes of
inquest proceeding because during that time we had in our custody two
individuals. But in the last seizure, Your Honor, we no longer have somebody in
our custody that’s why we immediately turned it over to PDEA, through Atty.
Lazaro.
And also, Your Honor I, if I may just clarify. A while ago City prosecutors
Delos Santos said that there as no evidence to prove or to link the incorporators
in the case. As a matter of fact, Your Honor, we submitted a document, document
for the vessel wherein it was stated there that the consignee is Hualong
International. So, from here, it was the only evidence we had during that time as
I’ve said, a while ago. So through that document, Your Honor, there was a
presumption that these incorporators, because the corporation cannot be held
liable, eh, cannot be held criminally liable. So there was a presumption already, a
legal presumption that these incorporators can be held liable for conspiracy and
the, you know, for this contraband and another thing, Your Honor, a while ago,
Gen. Santiago said that it was the NBI who conducted the test, the laboratory
examination of the seized contraband. On May 27, Your Honor, the PDEA agents
were there, May 27, 28. The PDEA agents and the NBI agents, chemist were
already there. When the NBI agents or chemist conducted the examination, the
quantitative examination for the seized contraband, Your Honor, the PDEA…it
was made in the presence of the PDEA agents or chemist. However, Sir, wala po
silang dalang mga gamit. Pumunta sila sa Task Force Subic nang wala silang
gamit. That prompted the NBI chemist, instead of the PDEA chemist, to do the
quantitative investigation. Kasi nakalagay naman po sa R.A. 9165, the PDEA or
any law enforcement agency with facility, ‘di ba, can conduct laboratory
examination until such time that PDEA can do so.
So, I think, hindi naman po yata tama na instead of siguro thanking us for
the things we’ve done so far the other agencies will point their fingers against
PASG.
MR. ALVARO BERNABE LAZARO (Chief, Legal Prosecution Service, PDEA).
Your Honor, we are not finding fault here, we’re only stating two facts as they
were. As a matter of fact, the declaration of the Director General on May 27 can
be corroborated by no less than the person present at the very place of the
incident, our chemist from region III.
Maybe we should allow the chemist to speak.
MS. CHERYL LYNNE CUNANAN (Chemist, PDEA). Good afternoon,
everybody. I’m Engr. Cheryl Lynne B. Cunanan. I am the representative from
PDEA. During that time, I am the representative as a chemist. So we arrived there
at around 7 o’clock in the morning. During that time, I was hired by PDEA at May
1, on May 1. So, the seizure was at May 28. And during that time, I was not given
prior training yet. So, when I went there, I went there as a PDEA chemist but I
told specifically the panel during the press conference that the PDEA chemists
are on their way and with them ‘yung mga gamit. Kasi po tumawag kami sa
Laboratory Service at 8 o’clock, and knowing that they will be arriving there
shortly after, I told everybody that it would be wiser na hintayin sila. Pero sabi
po sa amin na mayroon pong MOA ang NBI at saka PDEA. This prompted me to
tell everybody that, “Sige, kayo na lang po ang mag-test.” Actually, there’s no
question about the test, there’s no question about the test kasi kung may MOA
naman po, so be it. I was not there as a chemist after that incident. I was there as
a representative of PDEA alone. I did not sign any document attesting that I was
one of the ones who tested it. Tama po ‘yung sinabi ni D.G. kanina na nandoon
lang ako, ginawa lang po akong taga-lagay lang doon sa ano…doon sa weighing
scale. Yun lang. And I don’t have any…I don’t have any document bearing my
name attesting to anything during that 714.66 seizure.
HEARING ON MAY 20, 2009
Hua Long International Corporation is a consignee of Subic Bay Freeport
REP. BARZAGA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My first question, Mr. Chairman, would be addressed to Prosecutor Emily
Delos Santos. Based on the interpellation of Congressman Antonio, it would seem
that no changes were filed against any official of Hua Long or any incorporator.
Will that be correct, Mr. Chairman?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. Yes, Mr. Chair, that is correct. All the cases against
the incorporators of Hua Long as against… were dismissed.
REP. BARZAGA. No, I’m not talking only about the incorporators. Not even
against the officer of Hua Long a case has been filed in connection with this
inquiry?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. A case has been filed as against Anton Ang…
REP. BARZAGA. And what is the position?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. …who is the general… who presented itself as the
general of Hua Long.
REP. BARZAGA. General Manager?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. Yes, sir.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, a while ago, a statement was made that there was
even liquidation, assignment of share stocks, etcetera, these allegations were
based only on the affidavits executed by the incorporators, will that be correct?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. In their affidavits, Mr. Chair.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, has there been any document like a general
information sheet, financial statement or stockholders meeting coming from the
Securities Exchange Commission regarding Hua Long International Corporation
which were presented in the course of hearing?
MS. DELOS SANTOS. During the preliminary investigation, no such
documents, Mr. Chair.
REP. BARZAGA. Now, Hua Long International Corporation happens to be
an importer and consignee of Subic so, I will address this question to Minister…
to the officers of SBMA, is that correct?
MR. ARREZA. Mr. Chairman, may you repeat the question? I’m sorry.
REP. BARZAGA. Hua Long International Corporation was the consignee or
the importer of the goods subject to the investigation, is that correct?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And considering that Subic happens to be a Freeport and
considering importations would be a normal business process, does SBMA have a
track record or at least a record of all the importers and consignee doing the
business in Subic?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So I assume that Hua Long International Corporation
doing business in Subic as a consignee or the importer has the …SBMA has the
appropriate record insofar as the Hua Long is concerned.
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And it would also be a correct appreciation to say that in
the record of SBMA, the authorized signatories or responsible officers of Hua
Long to transact business with Subic and Customs are specifically stated?
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your Honor, it is… the operation manager is Mrs. Estella
Ang.
REP. BARZAGA. Mrs. Estella Ang?
MR. ARREZA. Ang.
The officials did not comply with the procedure when they boarded Shun
Fa Xing
REP. BARZAGA. The operations manager. Now, it was admitted in the
course of our previous hearings that employees of Captain Pascual actually
boarded this vessel, the Shun Fa Xing vessel, is that correct Captain Pascual?
MR. PERFECTO PASCUAL (General Manager, Subic Bay Metropolitan
Authority). Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Yes, and that is a matter of fact, just for the record, could
Captain Pascual, Mr. Chairman, state his boarding officer?
MR. PASCUAL. The names of my boarding officers were Carpio and… I’ll
get back to you, Your Honor, because I forgot their names.
REP. BARZAGA. You’ll just provide that information later, I will continue.
MR. PASCUAL. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, when these boarding officers of yours boarded the
vessel, were they accompanied by Labrusca?
MR. PASCUAL. According to them, Your Honor, Labrusca is not around.
REP. BARZAGA. So, your answer a while ago that whenever your
personnel are boarding vessels, they are boarding it together with the employees
or officials of the Bureau of Customs is not accurate because in this particular
case, even according to your own boarding employees, the custom officials
(were) not present?
MR. PASCUAL. I did not state that the custom officials boarding officers
were around during the boarding process itself your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Ang nilinaw na tanong kanina ay kung kasama ninyo sa
pag akyat yung representative ng Customs? Ang sabi n’yo “oo”, kaya ang
tinanong pa natin ay kung bakit magkaiba pa ang sag…ang itatanong ng iyong
mga tao at ‘yung mga tao ng Customs.
MR. PASCUAL. Per procedure, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So, in short.
MR. PASCUAL Yeah.
REP. BARZAGA. In fact, the question is short, Mr. Chairman, so it is not a
rule, Captain Pascual, that when your boarding officers board a particular vessel,
they are always accompanied by Custom officials?
MR. PASCUAL. Per procedure, Your Honor, that is the procedure, Your
Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. What is the procedure?
MR. PASCUAL. That the boarding formalities, first, it should be boarded by
the quarantine officer. Once a quarantine officer have declared that the vessel is
cleared of any communicable disease, then the Customs, Immigration and our
boarding team boards vessel, that is the procedure, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Based on the report submitted to you and based also to
your personal or acquired knowledge, was that procedure, Mr. Chairman,
followed or observed or complied with in this particular case.?
MR. PASCUAL. For my boarding officers, Your Honor, the Customs,
Immigration, and Quarantine were not around when they intervened the vessel
already, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Was there any investigation conducted by the Subic
Authorities finding the reason why the Customs, Immigration, and the
Quarantine were not present and failed to comply with the standard operating
procedure?
MR. PASCUAL. I cannot speak with other agencies, Your Honor. We are
concerned only with SBMA, you honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So in this particular case, Mr. Chairman, Captain Pascual
has already provided the procedure. There must be your man, after that there
should be Bureau of Immigration, there should be the Custom, then there should
be the Quarantine people. My question, Mr. Chairman is who is the responsible
officer who has the obligation to see to it that this procedure has been complied?
Will it be SBMA authorities? Will it be Bureau of Immigration, will it be Bureau of
Customs, and will it be Secretary of Health for the Quarantine?
MR. PASCUAL Your Honor, we have shared responsibilities on this, Your
Honor. Each agency has their own functions to perform.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay, SBMA. The SBMA informed the Bureau of Customs
officially that their Custom Officer was not around when during the boarding of
this vessel as well as the employees of Bureau of Immigration, as well as the
Quarantine or nothing has been done by SBMA regarding the non-compliance or
non-observance of this procedure. As a matter of fact, that should be the
procedure in all cases that you are boarding vessels at Subic.
MR. PASCUAL. Your Honor, in this particular case, the agent usually
informs all the agencies concerned. And then, when the agent sinundo po
‘yung…’yung agent sinundo ‘yung mga boarding officers ko that the vessel is
already ready for boarding, then they found no other agencies there except the
SBMA officials, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Now, of course, how do you know that there would be a
vessel where your people have to board? There must be a notice of arrival?
MR. PASCUAL. Your Honor, the…three days prior to the arrival of the
vessel, the agent will file a per… ‘yung permit… application for the entry of the
vessel. And then we send the ship’s boarding arrival meeting to confirm the
arrival of the vessel. However, if for this particular voyage, the agent again filed
an amended entry for the vessel. So the arrival of the vessel was moved to 24
May, 2008, Your Honor. So the requirements for the agent to file an application
for the entry of the vessel, we require usually, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Just for the record, Mr. Chair, may we know the name of
the agent of the vessel?
MR. PASCUAL. Hualong International, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA So, Hualong International is the importer and consignee of
the goods and at the same time (it) is the ship agent.
MR. PASCUAL. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. And in particular, who was the agent who informed you
or signed the corresponding intended notice of arrival?
MR. PASCUAL. It is Estrella, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So, based on the documents, it is always Estrella who had
been signing for and behalf of Hualong.
MR. PASCUAL. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Now, going back to another… Well, of course, according to
you when you board, when your people board the vessel, they only satisfied the
checklist.
MR. PASCUAL. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So much so that even if… supposed the vessel carries
contraband, do your boarding people have any right to do anything, or do you
have any specific instructions to them?
MR. PASCUAL. They will report the discrepancies that are on the board
vessel, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Discrepancies pertaining to what, Mr. Chairman?
MR. PASCUAL. Pertaining to the checklist that has been given to them,
Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Sa checklist ninyo, hindi kasama yung mga contraband,
hindi ba? Kung sabihin na mukhang contraband ang laman nitong mga kahon na
ito, mayroon ka bang instruction sa mga tao mo kung anong gagawin o wala?
That is not your job; that is the job of the Customs. Do not do the job of the
people coming from the Customs.
MR. PASCUAL. No, Your Honor, we have given the instructions to our
people to note down every… any discrepancies that are noted on board on the
vessel, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, I will just go back to the Bureau of Customs.
Well, of course, insofar as importation is concerned and based in the
interpellation of our experts in customs law, Honorable Andres Salvacion, of
course, we have the so-called forward-inward manifest, is that correct?
VOICES. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Yes. Okay. The forward-inward document is the
document to be signed by the… by whom? More or less, could you please give us
a bird’s eye view of that forward-inward manifest, its legal significance, sinu-sino
ang pipirma riyan, kailangan hindi puedeng pirma niyan, etcetera?
MS. MARIETTA ZAMORANOS (District Collector for Subic Bay Freeport,
Bureau of Customs). The inward foreign manifest, Your Honor, is the declaration
of goods that are supposedly inside the vessel. While it is prepared and declared
by the master, it is attested by Bureau of Customs, and for that matter, because
this is a free port jointly also with SBMA.
REP. BARZAGA. So that inward foreign manifest has to be signed by the
master. And when we speak of the master, it is the master of the vessel, the ship
captain or the head of the vessel.
MS. ZAMORANOS. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, in this particular case, who was the captain of the
vessel who signed the manifest?
Comments of Congressman Biazon
The procedures in unloading goods were not complied with
Later on
REP. BARZAGA: Do we have the record, Mr. Chair, the name of the master
of the vessel who signed the foreign…inward foreign manifest?
MS. ZAMORANOS. Your Honor, I am still waiting for our people to give me
the name.
REP. BARZAGA. I will go back to…in the meantime, be going back to Subic.
Well, in this particular case, the first seizure was made at the gate, actually it was
not made at the gate, the Mitsubishi was stopped and was prevented from
getting out of the bay from Subic because there are no corresponding documents.
We all agree on this okay.
My first question is that the shabu, contraband, was loaded to the
Mitsubishi Outlander, meaning to say na naiba mula doon sa barko at naisakay
na roon sa sasakyan. As a matter of fact, another seizure nakita na roon sa, I
think, Hi Ace, a van, a Toyota van, So it pre-supposes na naidiskarga na nila.
My question is: what is the procedure insofar as the procedures in
unloading of cargoes are concerned? We have to remember that in this particular
case there are no documents to support the importation and that is why the
reason why it was not permitted, the Outlander to get out of the gate? Hidi ba
dapat procedure natin na bago iyan i-unload, may tumitingin muna kung puwede
na iyan ibaba at okay na ang papeles? I don’t really know that is why I want to
clarify on this point. What’s the present procedure right now at Subic? Puwede
tayong magdiskarga agad ng cargo kahit na walang corresponding documents?
MR. PASCUAL No, Your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Sa paanong nangyari ito? Eh kasi ‘to, naibaba na ‘yung
kontrabando, hinarang sa gate at ang sabi ng inyong mga personnel sa gate, there
are no documents to support the importation.
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your Honor, that is why the cargo was seized.
REP. BARZAGA: Yes.
MR. ARREZA. Yes.
REP. BARZAGA. Yes, but my question is what is your procedure before
you permit the cargo to be unloaded from the vessel to the land within the
premises of Subic? No procedure at all?
MR. PASCUAL Your Honor, before the cargo should be unloaded in the
vessel, we check whether they… the… from the… based from the inward foreign
manifest. The Bureau of Customs has to ascertain that the inward manifest is
correct and duly certified by the captain, yes.
REP. BARZAGA. Well, there is no dispute that the Mitsubishi Outlander
was not permitted to get out the gate by the guards of SBMA for the reason that
there are no proper documents. What were the proper documents which were
lacking and for which reason SBMA guards prevented the Mitsubishi Outlander
to get out of the compound of Subic?
MR. PASCUAL. It has no admission permit, Your Honor. Or nor the key
procurements whatsoever.
REP. BARZAGA. Whatsoever. So, if they do not have documents at the gate,
then they have also no documents at the time it is being unloaded from the ship
going to the Mitsubishi Outlander. Will that be correct?
MR. PASCUAL. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. So what’s the reason? Do you mean to say that you are
accepting that SBMA employees were remiss in their duties in allowing the
unloading of this cargoes bringing to the Mitsubishi Outlander without any
document?
MR. PASCUAL. We don’t allow the cargoes to be unloaded without any
documents, Your Honor. But in this particular case, it was surreptitiously
unloaded during the night, your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. It was surreptitiously unloaded, well, of course, we anticipate
that. It would be as per anticipation that in cases of free port like Subic, there
would be surreptitious unloading at night. What measures are being taken by
SBMA to prevent this surreptitious unloading at night, if any?
MR. PASCUAL. Your Honor, as have been stated by our Administrator
during the first hearing, Your Honor, we are already instituting measures to
install surveillance cameras in all our port facilities, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay. These 700 grams of Shabu, more or less in how
many containers or in how many plastic boxes were they placed?
MR ARREZA. Your Honor, 73 boxes.
REP. BARZAGA. 73 boxes. And I was not able to see one box. Can one box
be carried by one person?
MR ARREZA. Yes, Your honor.
REP. BARZAGA. What was weight of one box? How many kilos more or
less?
MR ARREZA. Ten kilos?
REP. BARZAGA. Ten kilos. Okay.
MR ARREZA. Ten or eleven kilos, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Now, we have all these things, all these problems. May we
know, because of the sad experience 700 kilos of Shabu -- what steps are to be
taken by SBMA to prevent another situation that may arise in the future, if any?
MR ARREZA. Your Honor, if we… as I mentioned in the previous meetings,
we’re already installing surveillance cameras in all ports. I think one of the issues
that was identified and we identified during our investigation is that we have to
rely on manual patrols to check whether the cargoes is being surreptitiously
unloaded especially from small fishing vessel such as the one that was describe.
Secondly, we have tightened up the procedure with regard to undocumented
cargo. During… in the past we would allow 24 hours for the party to present the
relevant documentation for the cargo. I think the last one that we are trying to
strengthened as well is our coordination with the Anti Drug Enforcement
Agencies particularly PDEA. Because if the SBMA was armed with proper
intelligence as well on the actions of Anton Ang or his possible connections to
any drug syndicates, we would have been able to prevent Hua Long or Anton Ang
from operating within the zone. So, one of the things that we have also
implemented is to enter into a memorandum of agreement with PDEA which
allows them now to… which we extend some administrative support in the form
of office space and, obviously, we can exchange… we can better exchange
intelligence on that regard.
SBMA officials may open suspicious cargoes
REP. BARZAGA. Thank you for that information, very short na, Mr. Chair.
I’ll be addressing this to the Bureau of Customs because I am not familiar with
the customs law. In the event a Custom official is already examining the goods on
board the vessel and there is suspicion on that part of the Customs official that
the goods might be contraband or illegal. Under existing laws, the Customs
official has the right to open the cargo?
MS. ZAMORANOS. During the boarding formalities, Your Honor, there is a
cursory search so that what is declared or manifested shall be checked as against
what actually they saw.
REP. BARZAGA. So in short, we speak of the cursory check, Mr. Chairman.
It simply means that the custom official has the right to open the cargo?
MS. ZAMORANOS. Your Honor, the boarding people are port operations
people. They are examiners who are officially tasked to do that. But in the case of
the free port because when the cargo comes in, I discussed about the… the
phrases that a cargo will go through after the discharge. Let me just also state
that normally, after the boarding formalities are conducted, then you have to get
a permit to discharge and, of course, the general permit will be certified by
Customs that all the cargoes in that vessel has been discharged and if there are
reasons for the boarding officer to… to be suspicious, then he inform the
authorities. For example, if it’s an ordinary port, he informs our law enforcement
– the Customs Police or the Customs Intelligence. But we don’t have…
REP. BARZAGA. Included… after informing the Customs Police, do the
Customs police have the right to open it?
MS. ZAMORANOS. Your Honor, in the case of Subic, we don’t have law
enforcement inside because the job is done by the… by the SBMA. We don’t have
access. Our law enforcement personnel are not authorized to enter Subic
premises.
REP. BARZAGA. So, even if there is direct information saying that the
boxes loaded in this vessel consists of shabu on the basis of that information,
under the existing law, we cannot open it? Will administrator Arreza agree to
that?
MR. ARREZA. No, Your Honor. He can open it because no… any
contraband, of course, if it’s… if it’s a highly excisable goods or contraband then
we turn it over the relevant…
REP. BARZAGA. No, I’m talking… like in this particular case, they are
contained in boxes, and therefore, the surveillance camera or even the naked eye
would not disclose that what is inside is Shabu.
MR. ARREZA. Yes, Your Honor. Yes.
REP. BARZAGA. Suppose there is a suspicion on the part of the Customs
Official, mukhang shabu ‘tong nasa loob, may karapatan ba kayong buksan yan o
wala?
MR. ARREZA. Opo.
REP. BARZAGA. Mayroon?
MR. ARREZA. Opo.
REP. BARZAGA. Subic, mayro’n?
MR .ARREZA. Anyone po. SBMA, Customs, PDEA, PASG can open it.
REP. BARZAGA. But the answer is different of Customs officials.
MR. ARREZA. I think… Well, I mean…
REP. BARZAGA. Sino ba ang paniniwalaan namin dito? Custom… O may
karapatan ba ang Customs?
Later on
REP. BARZAGA. This is to follow-up to the information given by our dear
colleague na sa SBMA, kinakailangan na magkasama ang SBMA and Customs
because it happens to be a Freeport.
Comments of Congressman Salvacion
REP. BARZAGA. So SBMA would be primarily liable.
Comments of Congressman Salvacion
REP. BARZAGA. Yes.
Comments of Congressman Salvacion
Vessels submit an application entry which contains the declaration of
cargoes
REP. BARZAGA. Primary responsibility, SBMA. Now, during also the
course of the hearing, there was even a statement made that this vessel is not
even registered. May we know the veracity of that allegation which was made
during the course of the hearing na ito raw vessel na ito, what is the name of the
vessel? Shun Fa Xing is not even registered? I do not know that, we just want to
clarify.
MR. ARREZA. Your Honor, we did not make that claim, we…
REP. BARAZAGA. Okay. Just for our information. Ano ba ang procedure
natin sa mga vehicle, ano ba ang data ninyo, sino ang kakapitan, nire-require
ninyo ba iyan, etc, o bigla na lang silang darating?
MR. PASCUAL. Your Honor, in their application for entry, the declaration
is being prepared by the agent, through the master of the vessel, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay.
MR. PASCUAL. So the master of the vessel knows the particulars of this
vessel. So the agent will now prepare the blank form.
REP. BARZAGA. We are racing against time. So in other words, dito
mayroon tayong listahan na pine-prepare ng agent, si Mrs. Estrella, kung ano
iyang vessel na ‘yan, kung saan registered yan, etc. Can you furnish also the
committee a copy of that? Or you don’t have that data right now?
MR. PASCUAL. We do not have that data right now, Your Honor, but we
have…I have a copy here with me of the application for entry permit, Your Honor,
which specifies the particulars of the vessel.
REP. BARZAGA. Including the country where it was registered.
MR. PASCUAL. Yes, Your Honor.
REP. BARZAGA. Okay.
Comments of Congressmen Salvacion and Biazon
REP. BARZAGA. Before we adjourn, just one motion.
Comments of Congressman Biazon
REP. BARZAGA. May I respectfully move that we require SBMA to submit
the briefing report made by them, including the map of the Freeport and the
picture of the vessel so that the committee could properly appreciate the issues
being discussed right now?
REP. BIAZON.
motion is carried.
There is a motion, any objections? Hearing none, the