‘Bikoy’ in ‘Ang Totoong Narcolist’ convicted of perjury


Peter Joemel Advincula, who confessed as the hooded “Bikoy” in the 2019 “Ang Totoong Narcolist” viral videos that accused several personalities and even members of the family of former President Duterte as involved in illegal drugs trade, has been convicted of perjury by the Manila metropolitan trial court (MeTC).

In a decision handed down by MeTC Judge Karla A. Funtila-Abugan, Advincula was sentenced to an “indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of three (3) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum, up to one year and one day of prison correccional as maximum.”

The complaint against Advincula was filed by three Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) members -- Chairperson Jose Manuel “Chel” Diokno, former Quezon Rep. Lorenzo “Erin” Tanada III, and FLAG Metro Manila chairperson and former Supreme Court (SC) spokesperson Theodore O. Te.

Advincula was accused of making false statements that were made under oath in 2019.  He said the three FLAG lawyers are “members of ‘Project Sodoma,’ which he claimed was a plot to commit crimes of sedition, inciting to sedition, cyberlibel, estafa, harboring a criminal and obstruction of justice.”

In his statements, Advincula said he was asked by the members of “Project Sodoma” to do the videos as part of the smear campaign against former President Duterte.

He said that on March 4, 2019 he joined a meeting at the Leong Hall of the Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) to plot against Duterte.  He also said the meeting was attended by members of “Project Sodoma,” including then Vice President Leny Robredo and then senatorial candidates Diokno and Tanada.

His sworn statements on “Project Sodoma” were used by the National Capital Region Field Unit of the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG-NCRFU) in the filing of a  criminal complaint in 2019 before the Department of Justice (DOJ) against 36 persons,  including Robredo and the three FLAG lawyers for  sedition, inciting to sedition, cyber libel, libel, estafa, harboring a criminal, and obstruction of justice.

The DOJ subsequently cleared Robredo and some of her co-respondents, including the three FLAG lawyers.  But the DOJ filed in 2020 a sedition case against Advincula, former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, Police Sr. Supt. Eduardo Acierto, Joel Saracho, Boom Enriquez, Yolanda V. Ong, Vicente Romano III, Fr. Albert E. Alejo, Fr. Flaviano Villanueva, Jonnel P. Sangalang, and a certain Monique.  It was not known as of posting the status of the case.

In convicting Advincula of perjury, Judge Abungan said “the essential element of deliberate falsehood was established in this case and accordingly satisfies the required quantum of evidence for conviction of perjury.”

But the judge ruled that there was “no sufficient basis to warrant the award of nominal damages.”

“The prosecution’s evidence primarily sought to establish the elements of the crime of Perjury and not the legal rights of the private complainants that were violated as a result of the criminal act of the accused,” Abugan explained.

The judge said that “as shown by the prosecution, accused (Advincula) was not present at the Leung Hall in ADMU on March 4, 2019 or had contact, albeit briefly, with Atty. Diokno and/or Atty. Tanada during the said date.”

Her decision also stated that while Te admitted meeting Advincula on March 2, 2019, “the prosecution was likewise able to show that the purpose thereof was only for an assessment whether accused can be legally represented by FLAG and not related to the ‘Project Sodoma.’”

The decision pointed out that Diokno and Tanada were at the Leung Hall on March 4, 2019 “to attend a Senatorial Candidates Forum (Forum) organized by Rappler and ADMU’s Political Science Department as they were both senatorial candidates under the Otso Deretso slate.”

“In this case, the totality of the prosecution evidence, when put ‘under severe testing,’ amounts to proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of perjury. The witnesses… who testified for the prosecution were able to sufficiently establish the falsehood of accused’s statements,” it added.