The so-called Laglag-bala gang of NAIA airport (“laglag-bala” or drop-a-bullet, roughly), the curious case of passenger Gloria Ortinez, & the magic bullet that changed shape upon presentation to the fiscal
Ms. Gloria Ortinez, a dedicated and hardworking OFW of more than two decades of unblemished record of shuttling back and forth Hong Kong to Manila, was stopped the other day by NAIA personnel at the X-ray screener and informed by NAIA security that her hand-carried bag had a bullet inside the outer pocket. She was arrested and detained until she was able to get a lawyer.
ABS-CBN reported contextually on the incident, in view of previous reports of a “Laglag-bala” gang at the airport.
In previous news reports, passengers complained to the news media that there were certain airport personnel operating in the terminals with a modus operandi of planting a bullet inside the hand-carried bag of any unwitting passenger, then asking for P500 to P1,000 pesos in exchange for not apprehending the passenger for illegal possession.
But…in case you are prosecuted, just remember that:
In the prosecution or defense of any illegal possession case, the chain of custody is key in making the case rise and fall. Chain of custody of evidence refers to keeping track of how the evidence changed hands from the time of arrest and seizure (and in this case, perhaps, even before arrest) to the time the evidence was bagged and tagged to the time it was transported and who transported it, to the time it was recorded and kept in the evidence room and who handled it, up to the time it was presented in court. Any break in the chain of custody, such as for example, failure to account for how the evidence was transported, who transported it, what time and who signed it in and recorded it as received, will serve to put a cloud of doubt as to the authenticity of the evidence and therefore cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution and the guilt of the accused. [in one illegal possession case in the RTC Caloocan, the serial number of the gun presented in court was different from the serial number stated in the Information or formal charge: on oral motion for dismissal right there and then, the Caloocan judge refused… the lawyer for the accused sort of picked up the gun and put it in front of the judge’s face so he could see it bore a different serial number, he got angry and issued a warning for contempt (“put down that gun…” “it’s not loaded your honor” “put down that gun and shut up if you don’t shut up i will cite you in contempt and have you locked up in the supply room…”) — anyway, probably because the judge did not want to see the lawyer’s face ever again, the case was dismissed a week after without any more hearing on the motion or any other proceeding. (it was a good thing i was “curious” and compared the serial numbers while the fiscal was prepping the SPO1 witness)]
In the case of Gloria Ortinez, it was reported today that on presentation by the police with the fiscal or prosecutor for investigation (to find a prima facie case for prosecution, or not), the bulled in evidence had changed shape from the time it was bagged and tagged to the time it was presented.The sharp-eyed fiscal looked at the photo of the bullet when it was bagged and tagged at the airport, and at the object evidence being shown to him. The bullet had shrunk considerably and was no longer a Carbine bullet. The fiscal said he did not have to be a gun expert to see that the bullet had shrunk and was not the supposed evidence that was handled at the airport. The case was dismissed right there and then, today.
And Gloria Ortinez lived happily ever after.
Pero ganun na lang ba iyon? (But is that it?).
Only because the President is an avowed gun expert and because airports and security matters are right up his alley, isn’t he a bit curious about the magic bullet?
Bullets don’t change shape unless fragmented with firing, and the only possible explanation why it shrunk upon presentation to the fiscal is (multiple choice, choose one only, right minus wrong, wrong spelling, wrong):
(a)the original evidence was lost in transit because it was laglagged (nalaglag), that’s why it’s called the laglag-bala gang;
(b)the Carbine bullet was so ancient that it disintegrated into powder when exposed to nervous sweat;
(c)the Carbine bullet could be traced, it had a homing device that caused it to attach to its real owner;
(d) the Carbine bullet was used and tagged before in a previous case and so, a clerk put it back in its old case file bag.
(e)truly, the old Carbine bullet of World War II vintage was really an anting-anting (amulet) and will show up and disappear again in the future and forevermore.
All those who handled the Carbine bullet, now a shrunk evidence — all personnel — from the time of arrest to the time of presentation with the fiscal, should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for, at the very least, tampering with evidence, maybe one of them will talk on the laglag-bala gang — but whom are we kidding, the President is busy campaigning.
remnants of last night’s raindrops, shot 40 minutes ago… [the theme/ page design works better for crosswise rectangular (or wide) photos, but i rotated this 90 degrees clockwise so your eye leads to the raindrops… hanging on the external ceiling of the window, but that makes the photo lengthwise rectangular — did not want to crop the bottom to make it crosswise because that would remove the time stamp on the photo so… i doubled it post-production to make it wide — don’t mind me)
and the DOJ Secretary said her meeting with the legal team assigned to investigate the 3rd batch of PDAF pork barrel respondents, some of whom are allies of the President, is re-set to next weekpending the submission of more documents because, according to her investigators, the signatures of the respondents on the documents were made by different persons.
As stated here before, statements on the part of respondents that their signatures had been forged are matters of defense. “Matters of defense” mean they are evidentiary in nature and can be determined only during the course of trial or during the presentation of evidence. In other words, respondents have to prove during trial that indeed they were out in the cold and had been “swindled” — their signatures forged — when public funds under their control or released with their endorsement, in hundreds of millions, were changing hands, under their noses (and i’m mixing my metaphors). Respondents need to prove that during trial.
Where there is a prima facie case, these matters of defense do not preclude the filing of a case.
(this is an “at the moment series”. i’m three-fourths finished with checking final exams, i don’t leave until i’m finished, not a matter of defense) (the song embedded was, “That’s What Friends Are for”, dedicated to friends of the President, it’s a cover up, er, este, a cover, with sharps and flats galore)
when you wake up before dawn, you have the luxury of starting slow then burning bright, as i hope the DOJ team would today.
shot 30 minutes ago, quiet and starting slow at 4am, see photo below.
Last week, we posted a reminder here that this past Tuesday was the deadline of DOJ Usec JJ, as stated by DOJ Secretary Leila de Lima, to submit his investigation report on the PDAF pork barrel 3rd batch of respondents (9 or 10 senators, about half a dozen PNoy allies, i’m not counting, but maybe you are). Apparently, they met their self-imposed deadline last Tuesday. Today, DOJ Secretary Leila Lima, as announced, will meet with the DOJ legal team to finalize or clarify the recommendations. There will be a presser i hope so we can find out right away the results, and, if it’s a slow news day, we might even see a live coverage… Here’s that photo of starting slow at 4am, dedicated to DOJ Secretary Leila and her team: Start slow and burn bright, shot 30 minutes ago half-asleep from my bedroom window (will be checking papers in a little while — this is still an “at the moment series”, remember? but i just typed some notes on the pork barrel cases.)
Hopefully, the conclusions are based solely on the evidence (and common sense); the statement from the respondents that their signatures had been forged are matters of defense and should be examined in the context of all of the evidence on the transactions: the contracts, vouchers, checks, audits, etc. and commons sense — is it believable that P100 million changed hands from the legislator’s office to the bogus NGOs without the legislator knowing of the transactions and without giving express or tacit approval to the use of his/her name and office? Bong Revilla was recommended for indictment based on the same kind of evidence even with the defense of “my signature had been forged” — the DOJ is bound if the weight of the evidence is similar, or the same. (those to be announced today still go thru the Ombudsman’s office).
And so, hopefully, it is based on evidence and not alliance with the President.
If so, this song by a Filipino international rocker (raw acapella version of “Don’t Stop Believing”– edgy and perfect, you should be hearing the first few notes by now) is dedicated to the hardworking DOJ legal team led by Sec Leila
…although some quarters might scream: “Hindi sila dapat pasalamatan! Masyado na silang late! Maniningil kami! Marami kaming pautang. Pero hindi pera. Maniningil kami! Magtutuos kami ng gobyernong ito! Maniningil kami!!!” …Bow.
