Press Statement

The denial by the Honorable Regional Trial Court Judge Thelma Bunyi-Medina of my motion for reconsideration of a previous denial of my motion for reinvestigation out of “prudence” and deference to the Court of Appeals ruling on my pending petition for certiorari assailing the finding of probable cause and the subsequent issuance of the warrant of arrest against me may not be prudent after all. Nevertheless, I respect that order.

As to State Prosecutor Peter Ong and Secretary of Justice De Lima, gloating as they did after learning of the said order from the RTC, it is becoming clear that they are only after “winning their case” against me, even at the expense of justice itself.

They may have simply forgotten that “they are the representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interests, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win every case but that justice be done.” (Dimatulac vs. Villon, 297 SCRA 679).

To set the record straight, I have never asked the DOJ to unilaterally conduct a reinvestigation. Rather, I have likewise maintained that the court has the final say if such move shall be granted. What I simply asked was for DOJ to join and not oppose us in asking the court to have the matter reinvestigated taking into consideration new and compelling evidence, the latest of which was Mancao’s own admission that he “only learned of the sordid affair ex post facto” thus, a tacit admission that he fabricated his earlier testimony that he overheard me order another subordinate officer to commit the murders which served as the sole basis for the finding of probable cause against me. Obviously, DOJ did not heed our request.

I maintain that I am a victim of persecution because of my strong advocacy against graft and corruption during the past administration. It is very unfortunate that the present Department of Justice and its prosecutors have become and continue to be tools for my persecution.

***

Press Statement by Sen. Lacson's Lawyers

It is unfortunate that Sec de Lima is being misled regarding the facts of the case.

Contrary to her claims:

1) We have no pending second motion for reinvestigation but simply an MR on the denial of our motion for reinvestigation. Precisely, under the rules, we submitted newly discovered evidence to justify the filing of such MR and to justify reinvestigation.

2) We have no pending petition with the Court of Appeals questioning the motion for reinvestigation previously denied by the RTC Branch 18. We could not have done so since our MR is still pending before the lower court. What we filed with the appellate court is a petition for certiorari with application for TRO and preliminary injunction questioning the judicial determination of probable cause ruling by the lower court.

3) We are not asking the DOJ to preempt the trial court on the reinvestigation. We are asking the DOJ to withdraw its opposition to the reinvestigation and join our efforts to persuade the trial court to direct the conduct of the reinvestigation, and to lift the warrants of arrest in the meantime.

We still hope that Sec. De Lima meant it when she recently declared that she has the “plenary power” to conduct a reinvestigation under certain conditions. She should not simply listen to the advice of the prosecutors who appear bent on defending at all costs the wrongful actions they had taken against Senator Lacson. Lacson has gone on record to say that the cases against him were filed in blind obedience to the instructions of former DOJ Secretaries, to put him away because of his relentless efforts to fight corruption under the previous administration.

***

Press Release by Sen. Lacson's Lawyers

Citing additional evidence, the camp of Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson urged Justice Secretary Leila de Lima anew to take a closer look at claims linking the senator to the Dacer-Corbito case.

Lacson's lawyers said the new evidence included the Aug. 2, 2010 affidavit of former SPO4 Reynaldo Oximoso Jr. and the Aug. 9, 2010 affidavit of former Senior Superintendent Michael Ray Aquino.

In their five-page letter, lawyers Alexander Poblador and Joseph Joemer Perez said they were forced to write de Lima because of former police colonel Cezar Mancao II's request to demand that former police colonel Glenn Dumlao act as a state witness in the case or have charges against him re-filed.

They disputed Mancao's insinuation that Dumlao's exoneration of Lacson was a turnaround from his previous testimony allegedly implicating Lacson, and that this exoneration was contrary to the terms of Dumlao's exclusion from charges.

"We are constrained to write to you directly to set the record straight and refute Mancao's allegations, which are obviously targeted not only at Dumlao but also at our client. The truth is that while Dumlao has implicated others, he has never implicated Sen. Lacson in the Dacer-Corbito case," they said, adding nowhere in Dumlao's affidavits contained any statement implicating Lacson in the Dacer-Corbito case.

Thus, they said Dumlao's Jan. 28, 2010 statement that Lacson had nothing to do with the case was not a reversal of his previous statements.

Moreover, Lacson's lawyers said the affidavits of Oximoso and Aquino support Dumlao's exoneration of Lacson.

They contradict Mancao's Feb. 13, 2009 affidavit that he overheard Lacson and Michael Ray Aquino discussing an "Operation Delta" to "neutralize or liquidate" Dacer.

While Mancao claimed those in the car included himself, Lacson, Aquino and Lacson's then driver Reynaldo Oximoso Jr., Aquino and Oximoso declared under oath that no such conversation inside a car ever took place.

These new affidavits as well as Dumlao's Aug. 2, 2010 affidavit are important pieces of exculpatory evidence that demolish whatever credibility of Mancao's allegation has with regard to the alleged conversation inside the car.

At the very least, they said these establish that Mancao's allegation cannot be corroborated and his plea to be discharged as a state witness will have to be denied.

"What is more, these new exculpatory evidence warrant, at the very least, a reinvestigation of the case. We have in fact requested the (Regional Trial Court) of Manila, Branch 18, to order a reinvestigation of the case based on these new evidence ... As we have told the court, there is a compelling need to conduct a reinvestigation so that these new evidence can be properly considered at the soonest possible time, instead of waiting for the trial proper," they said.

"The crime charged in this case is a non-bailable offense, in which the accused stands to be arrested and incarcerated without bail. It would be unjust to require the accused to languish in jail waiting for his turn to present evidence to indict him or to order his arrest. After all, the purpose of preliminary investigation is 'to relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused,'" they said.

"It is our hope that the DOJ will take a second look at the significance of these new evidence and accordingly withdraw its objection to the said pending Motion for Reconsideration," they added.

***

In Defense of Our Family’s Honor

[A Statement from the Family of Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson]

In every Filipino family, two things are most treasured: honor and home.

Our brother, Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson is accused of masterminding the murder of Salvador “Bubby” Dacer and his driver. The principal evidence against him that the previous administration’s DOJ investigating panel and the court considered “probable cause” was an affidavit by a lone witness, Cesar Mancao. In that affidavit, Mancao narrated a supposed conversation inside a car between Ping and Michael Ray Aquino wherein Ping allegedly ordered Aquino to have Dacer murdered. He claimed to have overheard the conversation while seated at the front seat of the car next to Ping’s driver, Reynaldo Oximoso, while Ping and Aquino were at the backseat.

To establish “probable cause”, the investigators and the judge must find the evidence credible. It must lead a reasonable person to believe that the person being accused committed a crime.

We believe that a careful consideration of the following facts will lead reasonable person to a conclusion that Mancao’s allegation in his affidavit was a fabrication and an absolute lie:

1. Oximoso denied in a sworn affidavit submitted to the court that such conversation or car ride ever happened. He explained that during the whole period that he served as Ping’s security aide-driver, the front seat was always reserved for the Aide de Camp. Therefore, Mancao’s claim that he occupied the front seat is not true. Oximoso also said that there was never a time that Ping, Aquino and Mancao rode together in a car during that period. Likewise, Aquino, in a sworn affidavit subscribed before a Philippine consul in the United States, having been in the same car as Ping and Mancao during the time that he was serving as PAOCTF Operations Division Chief, or having any conversation with Ping regarding any order or plan to liquidate or eliminate Dacer. He categorically denied ever receiving any order from Senator Lacson to liquidate any person, including a certain “Bero” or “Delta.”

2. Mancao unwittingly proved his own affidavit to be a fabrication and a lie. His sworn affidavit indicated that the alleged car conversation took place “sometime in October, 2000”. He clarified in a hearing for his petition to become a state witness that the car conversation took place “sometime in September, 2000 or early October, 2000”. He clarified that he could remember it very well because it happened during the time that then Pres. Estrada was out of the country. He made such clarification spontaneously upon direct examination conducted by DOJ prosecutor Hazel Valdez. He did so, however, oblivious to the fact as sworn to by Sen. Mar Roxas and Usec. Mike Toledo that at the time President Estrada was abroad and hence when the car conversation supposedly happened, Ping was with President Estrada, Usec. Toledo and Senator Mar Roxas on an official visit to the United States. Incidentally, DOJ prosecutor Hazel Valdez was part of the DOJ panel that drafted Mancao’s February 14, 2009 affidavit while both were in the U.S. Thereafter, Mancao was sworn to his affidavit on a weekend in his U.S. detention cell by the Philippine consul on a weekend, accompanied by DOJ Prosecutor Valdez.

3. That Mancao’s affidavit was a fabrication is further bolstered by the fact that several months prior to its signing, Mancao who was in the United States at the time, was interviewed over radio station DZMM and over Channel 7. He freely talked about being contacted by Gen. Romeo Prestoza, then presidential security chief in Malacanang. He narrated in both interviews that Prestoza wanted him to implicate Ping in the Dacer murder case and in exchange, he would be discharged as accused and he would be relocated with his family to Singapore, all expense paid. Is it a far-fetched conclusion that when threatened with extradition and being charged in this murder case; Mancao chose the easy way out by agreeing to become a state “witness”?

4. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the car conversation actually happened, Mancao admitted in a court hearing that he being seated at the front seat of the car with Ping and Aquino at the back seat, he was not at all certain what he actually heard.

5. On top of this is the testimony of Glenn Dumlao, who executed several affidavits attesting to Ping’s innocence of the crime. In one of his affidavits, he narrated how officials of the previous administration tortured him physically, mentally and emotionally so that he would implicate Ping, but he held on to the truth.

In spite of very weak evidence to support its case, the previous DOJ filed the complaint. The court issued a warrant for Ping’s arrest during the closing stage of the previous administration whose corrupt ways he exposed in many privilege speeches.

In an effort to strengthen a very weak case against Ping, the previous DOJ even cited a letter from Dacer to Estrada maligning Ping without submitting any proof that Ping knew about that letter. Another frequently told story is that Dacer allegedly told his daughters that if something happened to him, Ping was to blame. If these allegations proved anything, it is the fact that the case filed against Ping extremely suffers from lack of evidence to establish probable cause.

In our last Christmas together, Ping already told us of frantic moves of the previous administration to have an arrest warrant against him. He told us to take comfort in the fact that he had nothing to do with that crime.

Before the warrant for his arrest came out, Ping decided to become inaccessible. That was his personal decision. We understand that it had nothing to do with guilt or cowardice. He had enough information to base it on. For one, he knew then that the RTC judge was an applicant for promotion to the Court of Appeals. An evil trap was set by a perceived corrupt administration and it was about to be sprung on him.

Subsequent events validated his belief. On Friday, February 5, 2010, the RTC judge issued a warrant of arrest against him. On Monday, February 8, 2010 the Judicial and Bar Council recommended the judge to President Arroyo and she was promoted to the Court of Appeals one month later.

Ping became unreachable to avoid being a victim of an evil conspiracy to put him away because of his anti-graft and corruption crusade. Self-preservation is a natural human instinct. He did not regard letting evil triumph as an act of decency.

A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But with a non-bailable crime like murder, the reality is that punishment comes before conviction. The accused suffers in jail while a court trial is ongoing to prove his guilt or innocence. Our Constitution says that the right to bail can be denied when the evidence of guilt is strong. In the case filed against Ping, the evidence is not only weak; it is fabricated. Just one affidavit with a conflicting story by a witness of doubtful credibility against multiple exonerating affidavits and statements, including two previously made by the accusing witness (Mancao) is why we say it is.

Therefore, we are extremely puzzled why DOJ Secretary Delima continues to ignore calls for a reinvestigation of this case. According to the DOJ secretary’s interviews, she is waiting for additional evidence to start such a reinvestigation. If the foregoing facts are not enough, we do not know what else would justify a reinvestigation. We can only guess that public prosecutors at the DOJ who had a hand in filing this case are giving her the wrong counsel.

1. Setting legal technicalities and prejudgment aside, is it not common sense to give more weight to the testimony of three people against the uncorroborated account of one “witness”? That lone witness even admitted in court that he was not at all certain about what he heard. He freely said in two separate interviews with media months before that he was being enticed by the previous administration to implicate the senator in exchange for a comfortable life. Out of four alleged passengers in the car where the “incriminating” conversation supposedly happened, three have sworn that it never happened. Why give so much weight to Mancao’s affidavit and disregard Dumlao’s affidavit which contains vivid details of how he was tortured and threatened so that he would implicate Ping in the murder case?

2. Again, for the sake of argument and assuming that Mancao’s story is true, the invented conversation in the car referred to a certain “Bigote” as the mastermind for killing Dacer. Rather than trying to determine the true identity of “Bigote”, why did the previous DOJ instead charge Ping as mastermind? Is this not a tell-tale sign of a concerted effort to put him in jail?

3. Finally, is the physical impossibility of Ping who was travelling in the U.S. to be riding in a car to Greenhills with Mancao and Aquino not enough to deem Mancao’s affidavit as nothing but imaginary trash?

4. The most compelling proof that Mancao’s affidavit is a pure fabrication comes from Mancao himself. In a statement filed by his lawyer with the court, he declared that “he only learned of the sordid affair ex post facto” (after the fact). He is in reality being consistent with the affidavit that Dumlao testified to: Mancao knew nothing about the alleged plan to commit the crime and Mancao repeatedly admitted such innocence in several talks in the U.S. with Dumlao.

Being robbed of something valuable causes us pain and anguish. But when that “something” is our personal or family’s honor, it causes terrible pain and extreme anguish. Our brother may not be in jail right now, but we can feel his suffering. Mental and emotional suffering is worse than physical pain. Being away from home and from loved ones is one of the worst situations to be in. Our wish is for our brother to spend a quiet Christmas dinner with us, like what most Filipinos do, at home.

A friend sent this message: “From dark clouds, we get precious water. From dark mines, we get valuable jewels. And from our darkest trials come our best blessings from God.” This we believe in. We believe that justice and truth will ultimately prevail in God’s own time. Until then, we would like to express our gratitude to those who understand and sympathize with us.

THE FAMILY OF PING LACSON

(Sgd)

Romulo Lacson

Feliciano Lacson

Reynaldo Lacson

Juanito Lacson

Ma. Corazon Lacson-Magpayo

Ernani Lacson

Ma. Cristina Lacson-Diaz

Press Statement

Don’t look for me. Look at the evidence. It’s right under your nose. It won’t cost you two centavos to fulfill your duty to provide justice to all concerned.

I will only come out when justice is rightly served, or when I’m already dead. It may not be the best way to spend geezerhood, but unless you get me ahead of my time, I prefer to suffer in pain but with dignity, sitting alone with my conscience for the rest of my life, rather than do time in jail for a crime I did not commit.

The facts are too glaring to ignore. For example, in 2009, my lone accuser, Cezar Mancao II, after freely admitting to having been pressured and promised a good life by the previous regime, applied to become a state witness and be dropped as a principal accused by testifying that “sometime in September, or early part of October 2000, when ex-President Estrada was out of the country, he overheard me order a murder to be committed.”

Never mind that unassailable documents say that I was out of the country during that time, hence the physical impossibility of having engaged in that supposed “car conversation.”

Last November 11, 2010, to appear to be the least guilty and qualify as a state witness, he manifested before the same court through his lawyer that “he only learned of the sordid affair ‘ex post facto’ or after the fact.”

He “knew” but he didn’t know.

Should I take his place in jail?

As lawyers like Sec. de Lima would always say, “untrue in one thing, untrue in everything.”

My only appeal is for the honorable Secretary of Justice to exercise what she said is her “plenary power” to ask the court to withdraw the information and conduct a reinvestigation.

***