Disappointment with Justice

Our arrest happened between September 19, 2008 (Friday) around midnight and September 20, 2008 (Saturday) early morning in Ayala Alabang Village (AAVA) and Araneta Center, Cubao. We were sent to the custodial detention facility (CDF) at around nine-forty-five in the evening of the 20th. The next day September 21, 2008 (Sunday) we proceeded to the Special Enforcement Services (SES) office were State Prosecutor John R. Resado conducted the inquest proceedings at around nine-thirty in the morning. The three arresting officers and poseur-buyers IO1 Julie G. Tejido, IO1 Romeo E. Ascuncion Jr., IO1 Jigger B. Juniller and IO1 Louie B. Valdez swore to the truth of their submitted affidavits before the prosecutor, the respondents, their counsels and relatives present.

On September 29, 2008 (Monday) we were scheduled to present our counter-affidavits before State Prosecutor John B. Resado at room 303, mezzanine of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Respondents Brodett and Tecson swore to the truth of their signed counter-affidavits before the prosecutor while counsel for respondent Joseph requested for extension of seven days. Respondent Joseph swore to the truth of his signed counter-affidavit before State Prosecutor Resado as well on October 6, 2008 (Monday) at the same location. PDEA was then given ample time to refute our legal arguments.

On October 22, 2008 (Wednesday) counsel for respondents Brodett and Tecson filed their client’s respective signed rejoinder-affidavits to State Prosecutor John Resado’s office at the DOJ under the same oath. Council for respondent Joseph filed his signed rejoinder-affidavit under the same oath as well on October 23, 2008 (Thursday) before State Prosecutor Resado at the same location after being granted a one day extension by the said Prosecutor.

PDEA had celebrated their Christmas party last December 19, 2008 (Friday). At around six in the afternoon we received the Joint Inquest Resolution from the Department of Justice (DOJ) dated December 2, 2008 (Tuesday) in the custodial detention facility (CDF) for the dismissal of charges filed under I.S. No. 2008-1036 for violation of R.A. 9165, sections 5 and 11 in relation to paragraph B of section 26 and I.S. No. 2008-1037 for violation of R.A. 9165, section 5 and 11. The said resolution was signed by State Prosecutor John R. Resado with recommending approval of Senior State Prosecutor Phillip I. Kimpo, Vice Chairman of Task Force Anti Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (TFANDD) and approval of Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño, Chairman of TFANDD which directed the immediate release of the said respondents.

The respondents were not released due to Atty. Alvaro Lazaro of PDEA’s Legal Prosecution Services (LPS) that revealed an internal and unpublished department circular no. 46 dated 2003 which recommended all R.A. 9165 cases to go under automatic review of the Secretary of Justice. Furthermore, Secretary Gonzalez admitted in a Congressional hearing and in newspaper reports that he had officially received the Joint Inquest Resolution on January 5, 2009 (Monday) for his said review which would last for thirty days as stated in the memorandum circular, meaning that on February 4, 2009 (Wednesday) he should have released his final findings and decision.

Respondents Brodett and Tecson filed a petitioned to the Court of Appeals (CA) for writ of habeas corpus on January 6, 2009 (Tuesday) wherein respondent Joseph later interjected to be included in the said petition a week after. The three respondents appeared before the Honorable Court of Appeals panel on January 27, 2009 (Tuesday) which resulted to a denied decision dated January 30, 2009 (Friday). Respondent’s respective legal counsels received the CA’s result on February 13, 2009 (Friday) and filed for a motion for reconsideration on February 23, 2009 (Monday) & March 2, 2009 (Monday) wherein they clearly stated among others the following arguments:

Article 2 of the New Civil Code, it is provided that: “Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. xxx”

Article 7 of the New Civil Code, that: “xxx Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.”

Section 7 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. “The person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provision of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception. xxx”

Section 90 of R.A. 9165 states that: Jurisdiction. “xxx The preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall be terminated within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of their filing."

Section 3 of Department Circular 70 of the DOJ otherwise known as the “2000 NPS Rule on Appeal” dated July 3, 2000 which was duly published and provides: Period to appeal. “The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution, or of the denial of motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation xxx”

The Joint Inquest Resolution had already attained finality as of January 3, 2009 since Section 7 of Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that: Modification of judgment. “xxx a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal xxx"

2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors of DOJ signed by Secretary of Justice, Raul Gonzalez states: “When the Chief State Prosecutor sustains the recommendation of the inquest prosecutor for the dismissal of the complaint, arrested or detained person(s) shall be released pending automatic review.”

The Independent Fact-Finding Committee created by the honorable President of the republic of the Philippines Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Composed of Retired Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino (Chairwoman), Retired Justice Raol Victorino and San Beda’s Dean of Law Fr. Ranhilio Aquino. The first day of the proceedings started on February 5, 2009 (Thursday) and ended on its eleventh day, February 19, 2009 (Wednesday). The committee was arranged to complete and wrap-up its findings on February 25 (Wednesday) after the given fifteen working days period. Listed below are some of our many observations to the testimonies given.

IO1 Louie B. Valdez and “arresting officer” of respondent Joseph, IO1 Romeo E. Ascuncion Jr. testified before the panel that no drug evidence was seized from respondent Joseph. IO1 J. Sogoc also testified that she had no direct knowledge of the evidence seized for respondent Joseph. She also claims that only at their arrival at PDEA SES office was the evidence presumed to have come from respondent Joseph presented to her by IO1 Jigger B. Juniller. It was also later revealed that no drug evidence was ever labeled with Joseph’s initials nor was he photographed together with the said drug evidence.

Respondet Tecson stated that IO1 Louie B. Valdez is not his “arresting officer” and was arrested at gun point by an unidentified person. Respondent’s Joseph and Brodett also stated that not all agents present in the “buy-bust” operation were mentioned in the affidavits of PDEA. It was also later discovered that more than two PDEA service vehicles were used in the operation identified as a white sedan with plate number (UDS105) and a maroon Pajero (UMT 136) owned by Maj. Lopez of PDEA’s Critical Reaction Unit (CRU) Director, even if their permit to operate only stated a white Toyota Revo (ZMR 517) and a white Isuzu Crosswind (ZMR 519). PDEA was also unable to reveal its alleged surveillance reports on the three suspects.

State Prosecutor John R. Resado pointed out the laboratory chemistry report no. DD-172-08 wherein PDEA chemist, Ms. Ronna Mae Aguilon admitted to human error on the handwritten time of receipt indicated. He also claimed how absurd it was that specifically on this case two duty chemists performed human errors noting that one of them committed the same error on two separate reports. He categorically also stated that the results were expunged from the records due to the respondents counsels objections for PDEA to be allowed to include there laboratory chemistry report after seventeen days from deadline of submission has elapsed, noting that the arresting officers were able to file on time but the chemists could not even if there are of the same government agency. Atty. Felisbero Verano also pointed out how strange it was that respondent Tecson’s chemistry report no. DT-194-08 (Tecson) would come in between the other two respondent’s chemistry report nos. DT-193-08 (Joseph) and DT-195-08 (Brodett), when in fact respondent’s Joseph and Brodett were apprehended first before respondent Tecson.

IO1 Jigger B. Juniller testified that he did not fire his firearm nor did any of his companions in the Acacia Avenue, Ayala Alabang Village incident. The AAVA Bulldog Security report stated that it received a report from a resident that heard three gunshots along Acacia Ave. Respondent Joseph also stated in his counter-affidavit that he saw IO1 Jigger B. Juniller fire twice at respondent Brodett while another unidentified person fired a shot into the air. Patrick El-Khoury’s NBI affidavit also states that we witnessed and heard three to four gunshots at the scene. Finally, respondent Brodett also claims hearing gunfire which hit his rear windshield as stated in his counter-affidavit.

According to IO1 Julie G. Tejido’s testimony, respondent Brodett’s injuries were self inflicted. Complainant PDEA claims “reasonable force” was used to neutralize respondent Brodett because he tried to run away while agent Tejido was placing him under arrest. Agent Tejido also stated among others that the only shots fired by in the Luzon Drive corner Madrigal Avenue, Ayala Alabang Village scene came from him when he fired five shots collectively at respondent Brodett’s Honda Accord front and rear tires. The AAVA Bulldog report clearly states that the car “sustained seven (7) bullet holes in different parts of the body” Respondent Brodett also stated in his counter-affidavit that armed me started shooting directly at him while he was unarmed inside the car and that three (3) shots hit his car windshield in the position of his face.

All three arresting officers IO1 Julie G. Tejido, IO1 Romeo E. Ascuncion and IO1 Louie B. Valdez claim to have apprised us of our constitutional rights. All three respondents’ counter-affidavits state that no said appraisal occurred between them and the said arresting officers. When arresting officers were asked by Retired Justice Victorino to recite the said rights IO1 Louie B. Valdez incompletely stated the Miranda Rights both in English and Tagalog.

PDEA operatives claim that boodle money was used in this operation and that seized from respondent Brodett was a small black clutch bag which contained the said drug evidence recovered from him. Why were the said evidences never submitted as evidence to the case filed? IO1 Jigger B. Juniller also claimed that respondent Joseph returned to him Php 7,500.00 which he did not accept but gave to respondent Joseph who immediately placed the bills inside his wallet. If the buy-bust money was actually boodle money why would there be change? Why was the seven-thousand-five-hundred pesos never presented as evidence with the one piece five-hundred and one piece one-hundred peso bills initially presented? It is also strange that when the mother of respondent Joseph asked for his personal belongings which she was denied access to by SES Deputy Jeffery Bangsa, his wallet only contained around Php 4,600.00 pesos in cash.

SO Ballares of Right 8 AAVA security stated in the AAVA Bulldog report and later testified that he had witnessed two suspects pressed between later identified PDEA agents being slapped and boxed by the said agents. He later added that respondent Joseph was the only one he saw get hit by the agents and held at gun point by them. SO Yuvega of Bulldog AAVA security testified that he witnessed the shooting of respondent Brodett’s car by multiple agents with long arms and handguns. He also disclaims he witnessed multiple agents take turns mulling him but states that when he was respondent Brodett he had been badly beaten up and bleeding from his lips. So Yuvega also requested the agents to not further injure respondent Brodett since he was still inside their jurisdiction and because he assumed Brodett’s injuries sustained were inflicted by these agents.

PDEA also initially claimed in the first ever news report regarding this case that it was respondent Brodett’s car that rammed into their maroon service Pajero (UMT 136) vehicle. But it was later found out in their testimony before that independent panel that the maroon Pajero claimed to be driven by IO1 Jeffery Banagao was the one that rammed into respondent Brodett’s car forcing it to slam into the sidewalk area and brought the vehicle to a complete stop.

PDEA informed the panel that their information regarding respondent Tecson came from respondent Joseph’s voluntary admission. Unfortunately there is no proof of such due to lack of procedure evidence. In the rules of engagement being followed by PDEA it clearly stated that confidential informant (CI) information should be written down on a logbook and signed.

State Prosecutor John R. Resado noted that the prosecutor manual allows them to release resolutions of dismissal. Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño, Chairman of Task Force Anti Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (TFANDD) also stated that in his level he believes the Joint Inquest Resolution was valid, final and executorial on December 19, 2008 (Friday). Senior State Prosecutor Phillip I. Kimpo, Vice Chairman of (TFANDD) also informed the panel that in his level, he not only solely review the Joint Inquest Resolution but referred it as well to his reviewer, Prosecutor Lagada.

Congressional Hearing on Dangerous Drug February 20, 2009 (Thursday) respondents Brodett and Tecson testified freely before the honorable congressmen while respondent Joseph, with the advise of his lawyer invoked his right to silence.

Congressional Hearing on Dangerous Drug March 2, 2009 (Monday) is scheduled for an executive session with said PDEA agents, respondent, DOJ and others involved in the case with no television media and only radio broadcast.