It’s a lynching. That’s the only way to describe what PDEA Director Dionisio Santiago instigated when he insinuated that State Prosecutor John Resado dumped a drug case in exchange for a bribe that started at P3-M and ballooned to P50-M.
Santiago’s expose resulted in a media feeding frenzy and a congressional investigation that distinguished itself for prejudging Resado.
The lynch mob never gave Resado a chance to respond to any of the accusations thrown at him.
They dismissed his explanation of a fiscal’s two-step role of impartial investigator during the inquest or discovery process and prosecutor if probable cause is ever found.
They castigated him for his reluctance to “massage” the PDEA’s case and his “wrong” interpretation of a department order he believed contradicted the Rules of Court.
Never mind that Resado concluded there was no case to prosecute because the arrest and search were done illegally. The mob insisted a fiscal had no business acting as a judge.
Ironically, the same argument can be used against the congressmen who, only two months earlier, dismissed the impeachment case against Gloria Arroyo for lack of substance.
Party-listers for their part used Resado to go after DOJ secretary Raul Gonzalez. They said the DOJ practiced a double standard: strict adherence to technicalities when it involved drugs but not when it came to politics.
I watched two days of televised committee hearings and I’m convinced Dir. Santiago used the bribery allegation to draw attention away from the fact that his ballyhooed “air-tight” case was full of holes.
When asked about the expose, all he could say under oath was, “We used that to psyche out the prosecutors.”
He told the committee he had no other choice but to reveal the bribe after he learned of a text message asking why the case was still being pursued despite money being passed.
He did not tell the committee that the text message came from the wife of David Brodett, the estranged uncle of one of the suspects.
That information only came out on the second day of the hearing when Brodett, along with his wife and son, showed up as guests of PDEA.
Maj. Ferdinand Marcelino, the nation’s flavor of the month, added legs to Santiago’s psywar operation by testifying that he received two bribe offers to not to file the case and then to drop the case.
When asked who offered the bribe, Marcelino said it was his “mistah” at the PMA but he would only reveal the man’s name in executive session.
Maj. Marcelino wanted to protect a bribing mistah’s good name!
That should have raised the hackles of the congressional committee. But it did not.
The mob was only interested in proving that Resado and his colleagues were bribed. They didn’t seem to care much about who acted as middleman for the bribe.
Maj. Marcelino must have concluded he had a free pass and so he refused twice to appear before the NBI panel investigating his allegations.
Arnel Dalumpines, head of the NBI special task force investigating the bribe, said Marcelino told investigators “it’s Justice Secretary Gonzalez who should be investigated instead of him.”
The fact is the PDEA has an in-house counsel, Alvaro Lazaro. Presumably, he reviewed the affidavits of his agents before submitting them to Resado.
If he had prepared the affidavits properly, there would have been no need for any “clarificatory questions.” The sworn statements would have stood on their own merits.
And that, by the way, is what Resado meant when he said he studied all the affidavits and counter-affidavits and he saw no need for clarificatory questions.
But there were so many questions, as pointed out by the committee and the PDEA. So is that the fault of Resado or Lazaro?
If the committe had been impartial, if they were really searching for the truth and not just grandstanding, they would have skewered Lazaro for submitting a case worthy of Oliver Lozano and Ruel Pulido instead of lynching Resado who did everything by the book.
But what can you expect of politicians?
They know that to be against drugs is to become popular and for that they will do anything, including destroying a man’s reputation and participating in the sacrifice of due process and the rule of law.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Has anyone commenting on this case ever read the contending affidavits?
I believe that in criminal cases of this sort the prosecutors and the law enforcers are supposed to collaborate to pin down the accused while the accused with his lawyer are supposed to be able to refute the charges based on what the prosecutors with the assistance of the law enforcers present to them.
That is the theory behind how the criminal justice system copied from the kano is supposed to work.
There is no doubt that in practice both sides will attempt to take measures to push their side of the equation.
Taking into account the resources available to both sides the defendants side if the accused is materially well off the scale in the Philippine context will almost always be in their favor.
I am presently and have been involved in court cases in both American and Philippine jurisdictions. Even in American jurisdictions the matter of material means play an integral part in the process.
However in the Philippine context the entire judicial system is severely hampered by the lack of resources and the perception of corruption in the justice system starting with the prosecutors
is well known to those who have had the unfortunate experience of coming under their sway.
The problem with the PDEA on the other hand is the fact that the Queen put military men in charge
of strictly police functions. Plus the present head however his good intentions comes out looking like a man who will do all that is necessary to bring down an enemy.
Defense lawyers love that type of personality. All of sudden it becomes a human rights issue.
The proof of the bankruptcy of the system is the Queen herself has taken over the mantle of a structure that she personally took great pains to destroy.
Why bother with all those useless cabinet meetings that we see constantly.
She has just paralyzed the entire structure since nothing will move without her say so.
A Czar in an age when information travels with the speed of light. The drug cartels must now be jumping for joy.
Theory is sometimes far from reality.
Atty. Verano knows the tricks in his trade, its not even a subject in law school.
John Resado esquire. Who is he? Media has already shown the dilapidated ancestral home of the young major, but John? Is he the stranger at the BOQ inside BNS? What kind of lawyer is enduring a government pay, when he can go work for fancy law firms and earn “real” money?
Alright..who’s John? Why was he lynched? And how is his wife taking his government pay? Now that’s drama that media ought to sensationalize as well, just to be fair.
Director General Santiago who the president fondly calls “Chuck Norris” is from Navotas. Like his subordinate the young Major Marcelino, he is also not born to aristocracy. I know he was appointed as CG PA, I also remember the “Toyota Alabang staff cars” prior to being appointed as AFP CS. Both he and Cong. Golez belong to PMA class 70. Golez the same guy who investigated Bong Pineda, PGMA’s Kumpare, the case was dismissed by the Rizal RTC in September 1999. So much for congressional investigations in aid of you know what.
Still who the heck is Atty. Resano? Why was he lynched?
Yeah… who the heck is he? I’m bursting with curiousity, as to why media failed to report about John not Prosecutor Kymko, but John Resano.
Danilo,
Media is not interested in informing the public about John Resado because they have chosen him as the villain in this moro moro created by Dir. Dionisio Santiago and Maj. Marcelino. Media knows that it will not help their storyline if the public finds out that Resado’s roots are no different from Marcelino’s.
John Resado like Marcelino was not born to aristocracy. He is the son of public school teachers in Aklan, one of the poorest provinces in the country. He went to public schools. When it was time for him to go to college, his parents hocked everything they had so they could send him to Manila to study law.
Why i he not with any fancy law firm? Probably because he did not graduate from the top of his class from some fancy law school, and he did not top the bar, and he does not have the pedigree,
Why was he lynched? I don’t know. All I know, from what I’ve witnessed, is the man was found guilty even before the facts were presented in public. That is a lynching.
Supposing that there is actually no real bribery attempt, I believe below may apply.
G.R. No. 168380
“Concomitant with his authority and power to control the prosecution of criminal offenses, the public prosecutor is vested with the discretionary power to determine whether a prima facie case exists or not. This is done through a preliminary investigation designed to secure the respondent from hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution.”
“Given this latitude and authority granted by law to the investigating prosecutor, the rule in this jurisdiction is that courts will not interfere with the conduct of preliminary investigations or reinvestigations or in the determination of what constitutes sufficient probable cause for the filing of the corresponding information against an offender. Courts are not empowered to substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch. Differently stated, as the matter of whether to prosecute or not is purely discretionary on his part, courts cannot compel a public prosecutor to file the corresponding information, upon a complaint, where he finds the evidence before him insufficient to warrant the filing of an action in court. In sum, the prosecutor’s findings on the existence of probable cause are not subject to review by the courts, unless these are patently shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion.”
Just wanted to add my comments. I listened to the hearing earlier and it just highlighted how convuluted and twisted the morals are of our so called “State Prosecutor” John Resado. How can anyone confess to knowing about a bribery attempt then not report it to anyone simply because the one who attempted to bribe him was or continues to be his “close” friend. And then later to provide his decision to “dismiss” the case because of a lack of evidence – evidence that is already suspect of being tampered with…and all the while John Resado maintains that he made his “clear judgement” just based on all the facts of the case. Shame on you john resado….for covering up the bribery attempt because atty lazaro is your self-confessed friend…and then later on to deny that the money in your bank account is from a money-lending business that your family has been maintaining…a business that you later confessed to congressmen that is not registered and that you have not declared on your income tax returns….
It’s a shame that this is yet another case for people to shrug at and say, “only in the philippines…”
Yes, so sad that only in the Philippines that a state prosecutor can think that keeping his friendship and avoiding conflict has a higher priority than upholding the law…that John Resado thinks that it was ok for him to maintain funds from an unlicensed and an untaxed source of income as long as the funds were not from a bribery attempt…
Shame on you Atty John Resado…you bring shame to your profession and to your family name.
Dennis,
You would be fair and balanced if also criticized Maj. Marcelino for not revealing the name of his mistah in public, At yesterday’s hearing he was asked directly by Cuenco to name his mistah and he refused citing operational ekek. Second, why didn’t he entrap his mistah just like we expect Resado to do likewise.
As for the congressmen. Yesterday’s hearing was about an anonymous letter and about the NBI dismissal of the bribery allegations. Marcelino and Resado should have been grilled but only Resado got the brunt of it.
Third, all the info about Resado’s sidelines etc. was not germane to the hearing. Golez brought those things up because to distract the public from the fact that Resado has been able to refute the allegations against him.
As to the dismissal. Resado did not dismiss it because of lack of evidence. He dismissed it because, based on the affidavits submitted by the PDEA, the evidence was the fruit of an illegal arrest, search and seizure. There’s a world of evidence between lack of evidence and evidence illegally acquired.
If shame is to be apportioned here let the most of it go to PDEA and the biased congressmen like Golez, Cuenco, Biazon, and Barzaga because in the zeal to carry on the war of drugs they forgot all about a fair hearing, due process, and the rule of law.
I will have to agree with the title of the article as “lynching” I was watching the congressional hearings and really find it amusing and very funny indeed. I recall the prosecutors lecturing the congressmen on judicial processes. I admire John Resado for even replying to a bunch of comedians while maintaining his position on arriving with his decision to dismiss the case. Thats what a prosecutors function is and if there is any doubt on his competence the matter should have been brought to court to be tried by competent persons and not by comedians.
Well,
I’m waiting for additional commentary regarding the “lynching” of State Prosecutor John Resado. Now that PGMA has come out with an order…
Tsk tsk tsk..wa wa talaga.
Thanks Mr. Manuel Buencamino. Any scoop on the pre-ops report?
Its for a term paper that was not submitted, just for the heck of it. Thanks again. Much appreciated.
The prosecutors in the Philippines have two functions: first, they are the functional equivalent of a US grand jury investigation. So, when prosecutors render a verdict, in a preliminary investigation, they do act as judges. I think we’ve become so used to how US television portrays their prosecutors that we don’t have any idea how else they are supposed to act.
Also, the evidence there was excluded because the buy-bust appeared illegal on its face. The exclusionary rule precludes from consideration in ANY proceeding any evidence obtained in violation of the Bill of Rights.
I find that those who complain the loudest about dropped charges are those who have never been falsely accused, who have nothing but the strength of their belief in their innocence to carry them through the night.
The reason why we put in so many loopholes for accused persons is so that when we do finally convict, we can tell ourselves when we sleep at night that we gave them all the opportunity in the world to prove their innocence.