My notes on d video of alleged signing of Comelec bid docs on P11.3 billion poll automation inside a Comelec toilet
My notes on the video of the 11.2- billion-peso poll automation bidder allegedly being assisted by the Comelec bid chair in signing bid documents inside a Comelec toilet last May 6 during a recess in the bidding process: I embedded the video below without endorsing it and, since i do not know the source, without giving it any kind of credence, and shown here only for purposes of ease of explanation.
This is a 27-second video stretched (repeated or looped) to three minutes to give running time to certain factual allegations and conclusions shown as crawlers or chargen (computer-generated text, or simply running captions).
The factual allegations and conclusions seem to be two sets:
1) the first, by the uploader, alleging that one of the persons in the video is Comelec special bidding chair Atty. Rafanan; and
2) the second, by what seems to be the original producer of the video being quoted by the uploader, alleging that Comelec special bid chair Atty. Rafanan gave F.F. Cruz Co. time, or three hours, to look for their missing documents during the bidding process and that Comelec bid chair Atty. Rafanan waited for said bidder to comply, and to provide these documents, and that the video shows the bidder, F.F. Cruz, completing and signing those bid documents inside a Comelec toilet.
This video has not been authenticated, the scene or scenario has not been authenticated, Atty. Rafanan has denied; only the location, the Comelec restroom, was confirmed by Comelec Chair Jose Melo in an interview today, but he said that the person was not Atty. Rafanan.
The following need to be established, and are not established by the video alone: 1) identities of all the parties in the video; 2) what documents are being signed; 3) date; and 4) context: why were those persons signing the documents inside the toilet.
Without more, or by itself, what this video tells/ shows me are: 1)there are three individuals inside a Comelec toilet , holding carefully, sheaves of papers stapled together; 2)one of the individuals, a grey-haired man in barong, is initialling or signing every page of the documents; 3) he is being assisted by a man in blue shirt who has the same hair style as Comelec bid chair Atty. Rafanan, but persons who know him say it is not him. This person glances sideways so you have a one-second view of his face. You can slow-mo it then freeze frame, then light it up and sharpen it to see the face clearly. 3)They seem to be in a hurry. 4) They’re in such a hurry that they choose the nearest private place, which was the Comelec rest room. 5)Two of them are glancing sideways to check no one is looking. That’s it. It needs more. In any case, the second set of factual allegations is easily verifiable by the records: 1) Is it true that Comelec bid chair Atty. Rafanan gave F.F. Cruz Co. three hours to look for missing bid documents? 2) If there were other bidders who had the same deficiency, were they given the same treatment? 3) If those in the video were F.F. Cruz and staff members complying with said requirement, that establishes the context of the video; but was there preferential treatment; or undue influence; or switching of bid documents; or bribery; or falsification? 4)there would be an anomaly if Atty. Rafanan had given preferential treatment to F.F. Cruz and did not give the same kind of opportunity to bidders with deficiencies; or if there were falsification of records; or if there were switching of documents; etc. By the way, under the Rules on Electronic Evidence of the Rules of Court, streaming video and video tapes are admissible as evidence of the content of the video if the person who took the video could be presented as witness to authenticate the video.
Posted on May 15, 2009, in Criminal law, Election law & election campaigns, Rules of Court and tagged 2010 elections, Atty. Rafanan, Comelec, Comelec bidding, Comelec toilet incident, F.F. Cruz, poll automation. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.