Kerwin Espinosa asks DOJ to dismiss drug case
Published May 16, 2018 02:14 pm
By Jeffrey Damicog
Self-confessed drug lord Rolando “Kerwin” Espinosa said whatever he said in the Senate cannot be used against him in the absence of any other evidence.
Kerwin Espinosa | MANILA BULLETIN
Because of this, Espinosa asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to dismiss the drug complaint filed by the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group's Major Crimes Investigation Unit (PNP-CIDG-MCIU) against him and his co-respondents who include alleged drug lord Peter Lim.
In his nine-page counter-affidavit, Espinosa pointed out that portions of his testimony at the Senate were among the additional evidence submitted by the PNP before the DOJ panel of prosecutors led by Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Juan Pedro Navera which is conducting the preliminary investigation over the complaint.
“However, the complainant must be sniffing something than shabu to think that such ‘admissions’ are sufficient for this Honorable Panel to hold that probable cause exists to indict me for Violation of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002),” Espinosa pointed out in his counter-affidavit.
“In order to prosecute me, the prosecution needs to have the proverbial ‘smoking gun’ – the drugs that would indubitably prove that I am engaged in the prohibited sale of drugs in the country. In the absence of this vital piece of evidence... ,” he stated.
Under the complaint, Espinosa and his co-respondents are accused of violating Section 26(b) in relation to Section 5 (Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals) of Republic Act 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Apart from Espinosa and Lim, the other respondents include arrested drug traders Marcelo Adorco and Lovely Impal; convicted drug lord Peter Co; Max Miro, Ruel Malindangan, Jun Pepito, and several others who are only known through their aliases Amang, Ricky, Warren, Tupie, Jojo, Jaime, Yawa, Lapi, Royroy, Marlon, and Bay.
The panel headed by Navera conducted the preliminary investigation after former Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II vacated the dismissal of the complaint by the first panel assigned to the case. The first panel cited inconsistencies in the three affidavits submitted by the PNP’s lone witness, Adorco who is allegedly an associate of Espinosa.
Now that the PNP has been given another chance to present more evidence before the panel headed by Navera, Espinosa said in his counter-affidavit that the additional evidence submitted by the complainant including a fourth sworn statement of Adroco only emphasize the weakness of the case.
Espinosa said “the additional evidences submitted by the complainant on 30th April 2018 have not helped in establishing the existing of probable cause against me or the other respondents.”
“Truth to tell, it even highlighted the weakness of their case against me!” stressed Espinosa.
Among others, Espinosa indicated that Adorco’s fourth affidavit is inconsistent with the statements of Impal including her denial that she met with Adorco several times for drug transactions in 2012, 2013 and 2014.
“Finally, Adorco claims that I had met with Peter Co at the Metropolitan Hospital in 2015 after Lovely Impal sought my help due to the latter’s alleged debt of Php10 Million to Peter Co. Once again, this was totally different from the statement of Lovely Impal in her affidavit, who claimed that she owed a certain Dr. Hans Tan the Php10 Million after she lost 10 kgs of shabu while enroute to her condo in Makati,” Espinosa said.
Kerwin Espinosa | MANILA BULLETIN
Because of this, Espinosa asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to dismiss the drug complaint filed by the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group's Major Crimes Investigation Unit (PNP-CIDG-MCIU) against him and his co-respondents who include alleged drug lord Peter Lim.
In his nine-page counter-affidavit, Espinosa pointed out that portions of his testimony at the Senate were among the additional evidence submitted by the PNP before the DOJ panel of prosecutors led by Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Juan Pedro Navera which is conducting the preliminary investigation over the complaint.
“However, the complainant must be sniffing something than shabu to think that such ‘admissions’ are sufficient for this Honorable Panel to hold that probable cause exists to indict me for Violation of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002),” Espinosa pointed out in his counter-affidavit.
“In order to prosecute me, the prosecution needs to have the proverbial ‘smoking gun’ – the drugs that would indubitably prove that I am engaged in the prohibited sale of drugs in the country. In the absence of this vital piece of evidence... ,” he stated.
Under the complaint, Espinosa and his co-respondents are accused of violating Section 26(b) in relation to Section 5 (Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals) of Republic Act 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Apart from Espinosa and Lim, the other respondents include arrested drug traders Marcelo Adorco and Lovely Impal; convicted drug lord Peter Co; Max Miro, Ruel Malindangan, Jun Pepito, and several others who are only known through their aliases Amang, Ricky, Warren, Tupie, Jojo, Jaime, Yawa, Lapi, Royroy, Marlon, and Bay.
The panel headed by Navera conducted the preliminary investigation after former Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II vacated the dismissal of the complaint by the first panel assigned to the case. The first panel cited inconsistencies in the three affidavits submitted by the PNP’s lone witness, Adorco who is allegedly an associate of Espinosa.
Now that the PNP has been given another chance to present more evidence before the panel headed by Navera, Espinosa said in his counter-affidavit that the additional evidence submitted by the complainant including a fourth sworn statement of Adroco only emphasize the weakness of the case.
Espinosa said “the additional evidences submitted by the complainant on 30th April 2018 have not helped in establishing the existing of probable cause against me or the other respondents.”
“Truth to tell, it even highlighted the weakness of their case against me!” stressed Espinosa.
Among others, Espinosa indicated that Adorco’s fourth affidavit is inconsistent with the statements of Impal including her denial that she met with Adorco several times for drug transactions in 2012, 2013 and 2014.
“Finally, Adorco claims that I had met with Peter Co at the Metropolitan Hospital in 2015 after Lovely Impal sought my help due to the latter’s alleged debt of Php10 Million to Peter Co. Once again, this was totally different from the statement of Lovely Impal in her affidavit, who claimed that she owed a certain Dr. Hans Tan the Php10 Million after she lost 10 kgs of shabu while enroute to her condo in Makati,” Espinosa said.