Inquest prosecutors should not take the word of policemen who file criminal cases against suspects, especially if the cops concerned were personally involved in the arrest of the suspects.
Most inquest prosecutors are too lazy, dull or scared to investigate such cops who invoke “regularity” in their action.
As host of a public service show on radio, “Isumbong Mo Kay Tulfo,” which receives complaints of police abuses, I’ve been witness to prosecutors filing criminal cases in court against innocent citizens on the mere say-so of policemen who brought them before the bar of justice.
One case involved a Manila policeman, PO1 Alan Rich Silva, who filed charges of robbery and assault against two laborers with whom he had an argument after he bumped one of them with his motorcycle.
The laborers, Regent dela Cruz and Gilbert Soriano, are languishing at Caloocan City jail awaiting trial since they could not afford to post bail.
The poor guys spent Christmas in jail.
Investigation conducted by my “Isumbong” staff in the Caloocan barangay where the robbery supposedly happened showed there was no holdup and the cop was never assaulted by the laborers.
One of the village watchmen (barangay tanod), who accompanied the policeman to the nearest precinct, told my staff the laborers didn’t have any weapons with them. Neither did they attempt to rob the cop.
The tanod, Romeo Cueto, expressed surprise when told later that Dela Cruz and Soriano were charged with robbery and assault.
The Caloocan City inquest prosecutor, who handled the preliminary investigation, apparently didn’t investigate Silva’s claim before filing the charges in court.
Another inquest prosecutor I would put in the same league is Taguig City Prosecutor Anthony Villamor who filed charges of robbery, attempted homicide and assault against 16-year-old Dindo dela Cruz Jr.
Villamor readily believed the story of PO1 Arnisah Acmad Sarip of the Pasay City police that the boy held her up when she was in full uniform!
What kind of fool would ever dare rob a police officer in full uniform in the street?
Villamor also believed Sarip’s story that the boy was armed with a pen gun and that she beat him to the draw with her service pistol.
Where was the boy hit? In the back!
How could Sarip have outdrawn Dela Cruz if the latter was shot in the back?
Granting for the sake of argument (as lawyers are wont to say) that the boy, who is short and frail, pointed a gun at Sarip, why did she have to shoot him when he was fleeing and no longer posed a threat as shown by the bullet hitting him in the back?
The truth is that — as related by the boy’s companion — Sarip shot a cellphone snatcher and accidentally hit Dela Cruz who was loafing around in the street with friends.