Signal to NBI to change its findings?
RENATO LUMAWAG/ Presidential Photo
Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV on Wednesday said President Duterte’s intense defense of policemen involved in the killing of Albuera Mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr. proved he was the “mastermind” of the killing.
“The President was the one who called [Philippine National Police chief Ronald dela Rosa] to reinstate [Supt. Marvin Marcos] to make sure that the person they were ordering will not be jailed. So that is a good statement because that is going to be used as evidence against him,” Trillanes told reporters.
Trillanes was referring to President Duterte’s admission that it was he who ordered Dela Rosa to reinstate Marcos and some of his men whom the PNP chief had sacked after confessed drug lord Kerwin Espinosa told a Senate investigation that the cops were on his payroll.
Mr. Duterte reasoned that he did not want Marcos to be touched because he was under surveillance.
NBI findings clear
Article continues after this advertisementTrillanes said the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation were clear that the police killing of Mayor Espinosa was a rubout.
Article continues after this advertisement“But here is the President requesting the reinstatement of [Marcos] and he is creating his own story. So in effect he was obstructing the administration of justice,” Trillanes said.
He said Mr. Duterte’s stout defense of Marcos and his men was a “signal to the NBI to change [the results of] its investigation.”
Still, Trillanes said it was luck that the NBI had released its findings before Mr. Duterte defended Marcos and his men on Wednesday.
Murder conspiracy
Noting that the President has immunity from suit, Trillanes said Mr. Duterte’s statements could be used to indict him later for conspiracy to commit murder, as murder has a prescription of 20 years.
Sen. Leila de Lima described Mr. Duterte’s defense of Marcos as “brazen impunity.”
“Now why would he be defending? That’s the problem. How can there be accountability for these extrajudicial killings if the President himself keeps on shielding these law enforcers,” De Lima said.
What Mr. Duterte did was tantamount to a “blanket pardon,” as he did not wait for the verdict of the courts, De Lima said, adding it was not even the duty of the President to do so since this was the role
of the courts.
“So that’s bordering on impeachability,” De Lima said, noting that Mr. Duterte was betraying the public trust because it was his duty to enforce the law, including “making sure that those who are responsible for committing crimes are being made accountable.”
De Lima said Mr. Duterte had to respect the Constitution, including the separation of powers, and that was why he could not preempt the courts on the multiple murder case against Marcos and his men.
Circumstantial evidence
Told that Trillanes had said that Mr. Duterte had shown he was the mastermind of Espinosa’s killing, De Lima said she believed there was a person higher than Marcos involved in the murder.
For one, Marcos was not capable of giving P500,000 to kill Espinosa, as testified to by the widow of Chief Insp. Jesus Son at a Senate hearing this week.
“So it has to be somebody higher,” De Lima said.
Asked whether she meant this could go up as high as the President, she said it was “possible.”
“That’s why there is a need to pursue that angle and this kind of statement [of the President], these are circumstantial evidence. These are indicative of that angle that he might be involved in that killing,” De Lima said.
