(Updated discussion) Many DOJ prosecutors are professional (the Alabang boys’ case and alleged drug bribery)

      To be fair, some if not many of the DOJ prosecutors who spoke at yesterday’s press conference have been,  through the years,  strictly professional at their work and had quietly performed their duties  regardless of who sat as DOJ secretary or regardless of who sat in Malacanang;   as can be seen by their winning streak. Prosecutors like  Deputy Chief Prosecutor Dong Fadullon,

 

 

 

whose soundbytes and  heartfelt remarks  were used by TV news, have been winning their kidnap-for-ransom cases in fair weather or storm, come hell or high water amid death threats and bullets from the kidnap syndicates. We worked with them in the plunder case; they were assigned there because they were the best of the lot. Their winning  and consistent track record shows that there are many DOJ prosecutors who are competent and upright.

 

           It is another matter if the prosecutor were losing his/her cases against the syndicates  or dismissing them in a row regardless of the evidence: that should be looked into. Beyond the one-shot investigation that would be done on the alleged drug bribery incident, the panel might include a review of the dismissed cases (dismissed on preliminary investigation or during trial) to see if there is a pattern.

 

         While it is the judgment call of the prosecutor on preliminary investigation whether or not there is a prima facie case, and while most of us including the  blog admin did not see the resolution,  or the evidence,  in the drug case, the general examples  of a prima facie case are:

       1) where there are two or more witnesses who have personal knowledge or first-hand knowledge of the facts of the crime and who can unmistakably identify the perpetrator;

      

         or if there were only 2) one witness, where  the lone witness has first-hand knowledge and his/her testimony is consistent, certain, logical, and without a doubt; and the suspects have no iron-clad alibi;

 

          or 3) where the respondents were caught in flagrante delicto;

 

       or 4) where the evidence were the product of a search and seizure:  the search was lawful and valid and the seizure of the evidence was valid and the evidence not inadmissible, then these can be used for probable cause, 

 

       or  5) where the pieces of physical or object evidence or the documentary evidence pointing to the liability of the respondents  are consistent, reliable, admissible, and unmistakable, then the respondents should be held bound for trial.

 

       However, pattern is circumstantial evidence; you’d need other pieces of evidence on the bribery allegation.

 

       On the other hand, on the other side, while the allegations on the supposed 50-million-peso bribe  would rise and fall on the basis of testimonial evidence, the draft dismissal order that was passed to the DOJ secretary through the DOJ Undersecretary’s office is some kind of a “smoking gun” evidence of the use of,  what one would call “connections” , to put it mildly, by respondents to get their way within the DOJ; plus the phone calls.  It is an incident that even the DOJ secretary himself had attested to and have personal knowledge of, having received the draft order. In regard to that incident, what else do you need? The DOJ secretary himself saw it, he is the witness, what else do you need? There should however be a separate investigation of whether or not there is a pattern of dismissal of  certain kinds of cases, and whether the dismissals were justified (as stated before, dismissal or charging is a judgment call, but there would be what one could consider general principles or guidelines established in jurisprudence; also, pattern is circumstantial but it sets off an alarm bell).