(Eagle News) — The Office of the Solicitor General will represent the Philippine National Police’s Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in seeking to overturn a Department of Justice’s panel decision junking drug charges against Kerwin Espinosa and others.
This is according to Solicitor General Jose Calida himself, who made the announcement in a tweet posted on Thursday afternoon.
“As ‘Tribune of the People,’ the OSG will enter its appearance as counsel for PNP-CIDG..The Solicitor General may act or represent the people before any court, tribunal, body or commission in any matter, action or proceeding which, in his opinion, affects the welfare of the people,” Calida said.
Calida’s announcement came following news a first DOJ prosecution panel junked the charges against Espinosa even if Espinosa himself admitted he was a drug distributor in a Senate hearing on drugs in 2016.
It turned out the PNP-CIDG, who was the complainant at that time, did not submit Espinosa’s testimony to the first DOJ panel, noting that this had been retracted by Espinosa during the preliminary investigation.
Only the testimony of Espinosa’s driver, Marcelo Adorno, then was submitted as evidence in the case.
The first panel, however, ruled that Adorno was not a credible witness, noting, among others, that his statements were not corroborated.
But according to Calida, the “uncorroborated testimony of a state witness may be sufficient when given in a straightforward manner.”
“The statement of Adorco – Espinosa’s driver – is considered as direct-evidence as he was an active participant and an eye-witness in the commission of the crime,” he said.
He added that according to De Lima vs Guerrero, the “‘illegal sale’ of dangerous drugs is a crime separate and distinct from ‘illegal trading.’”
“The ‘how much’ and ‘how many’ is an irrelevant factor, and not even an element of the crime under Section 26(b) of RA No. 9165,” he said.
“The determination of the existence of probable cause is not concerned with the question of whether the offense charged has been or is being committed in fact, but only whether the affiant has reasonable grounds for his belief,” he added.
A second panel has been formed to look into the motion for reconsideration of the first panel’s decision filed by the PNP-CIDG.
