Name mystery man in abduction of student activists, military ordered

State prosecutors have ordered the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to submit the name of a mystery man in the abduction of student activists Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan and who had been identified as a soldier and security aide of retired general Jovito Palparan.

A Department of Justice panel, headed by Assistant State Prosecutor Juan Pedro Navera, issued the order on August 3 in an effort to have the soldier included in the criminal complaint filed by the students’ mothers against Palparan and several military officials.

The prosecutors directed Colonel Herbert Yambing, the Provost Marshall General, in coordination with the AFP Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, to submit to the panel the “name, rank, serial number, unit assignments, personal and office addresses, other personal circumstances, and AFP personnel photograph of the person allegedly present during a hearing on July 19, 2011.”

The order also said Yambing should submit the same information to lawyer Edre Olalia, the counsel of the mothers of Cadapan and Empeño, “in order for the complainants to include that person in an amended complaint.”

“The panel will issue a subpoena to that person only after the submission of the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,” the order said.

The DOJ gave Yambing on or before August 11, the next scheduled hearing on the complaint filed by Concepcion Empeño and Erlinda Cadapan against Palparan and several other military officials, who were charged with rape, serious physical injuries, arbitrary detention, maltreatment of prisoners, grave threats, grave coercion and violation of the rights of detained persons.

Wearing sunglasses and a dark shirt in an attempt to be inconspicuous, Palparan’s escort caused a stir at the DOJ hearing on July 19 after a witness for the complainants told their lawyers that the man was among the group that abducted Sherlyn and Karen five years ago in Bulacan.

Olalia then urged the panel to allow the witness to point to the man to enable them to determine his identity.

The man, Olalia said, was among the John Does in the complaint, and that lawyers of the complainants were seeking the opportunity to be able to formally identify him in their complaint.

The panel, however, turned down Olalia’s request, saying that allowing it would deprive the man the chance to defend himself because he would be identified before a crowd. Nikko Dizon