Espinosa, Lim, et al. prosecutor points finger at PNP-CIDG over drug raps dismissal

FILE: Former Assistant Prosecutor, who is now a regional trial court (RTC) judge, Aristotle Reyes explained this as he defended the panel’s decision to dismiss drug charges against businessman Peter Go Lim, self-confessed drug lord Kerwin Espinosa, and their accomplices, for lack of evidence. (PNA photo)

As state prosecutors, it is their job to evaluate evidence against suspected offenders but looking for proof against them is not part of their duties, one of the Justice department’s prosecutors said on Thursday.

Former Assistant Prosecutor Aristotle Reyes, one of the two Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors who dismissed the drug charges against Peter Lim, Kerwin Espinosa, and their accomplices and now a regional trial court (RTC) judge, explained this as he defends the panel’s decision to dismiss the criminal raps lodged against the aforementioned personalities.

“Magre-rely lang kami sa evidence na isa-submit sa amin. Hindi kami puwedeng, on our own, ang maghanap ng ebidensya para sa parties (We will only rely on the evidence submitted to us. We cannot, on our own, gather evidence for the concerned parties),” Reyes told dzMM.

According to Reyes, the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) did not attach Espinosa’s confession in a Senate investigation last 2016 where he disclosed his illegal drug transactions and dropped the names of his co-respondents, including Lim and Peter Co.

“Sa Senate hearing may admission itong si Kerwin. Hindi namin trabaho kunin ang transcript nito otherwise kami na ang nag-iipon ng ebidensya. Trabaho yan ng CIDG. Bakit hindi nila nagawa ‘yan (Kerwin had an admission during the Senate hearing. It is not our job to get the transcript, otherwise, we will be responsible for the gathering of evidence. That is the job of CIDG. Why did they fail to do it)?” he said.

“Itong reklamo ng CIDG napakahina nagiisa ang witness. Meron naman sana silang corroborative witness and yet hindi nila ito sinama (The CIDG’s complaint is weak as they only have one witness. They have corroborative witness and yet they did not include it),” he added.

Reyes added that the National Prosecutor Service (NPS) cannot serve as a CIDG’S lawyer and advise the authorities on what should be attached to the complaints.

The NPS, he explained, threw out the complaint due to weak evidence presented by the CIDG and the “material inconsistencies” in the testimony of its lone witness, Marcelo Adorco, regarding the dates of the alleged drug dealing and the identity of the drug courier.

The preliminary investigation on the CIDG’s complaint was conducted by Reyes, along with Assistant State Prosecutor Michael John Humarang. They recommended its dismissal which was approved by acting Prosecutor General Jorge Catalan.

On Wednesday, Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct a case buildup against them. This order was issued amid public outcry over the recommendation.

Reyes admitted that he was disappointed by this directive, however, he still welcomes the NBI’s probe as an opportunity to explain their positions and clear their names.

“As a former prosecutor, nakakalungkot na parang ganyan ang naging resulta nung trabaho namin na hindi naman kami puwedeng mag-decide na against sa isang tao nang wala namang ebidensya at dahil sa public clamor (It is sad that that was the result of our work when we can’t decide against an individual when there is no evidence and just because of public clamor),” he said.

“Nag-rule lang kami based on evidence and law. Kung talagang wala, kahit sino ka — kahit sinasabing kaalyado ka ng administrasyon o kalaban ka — talagang ire-resolve namin ang case (We ruled based on evidence and law. If there was really nothing, no matter who you are—even if you are one of the administration’s alliances or otherwise—we will resolve the case),” he continued.

Aside from Reyes, Humarang also welcomed the formation of a new panel to review their resolution and the inquiry against them. He said that they are all ready to face the probe as they have a “clean conscience,” adding it was obvious that the complainant was not able to present sufficient evidence and only relied on the testimony of its sole witness.