OSG submits more evidence in bid to nail Peter Lim, Kerwin
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has already submitted various pieces of evidence to strengthen the government’s case against Cebu-based businessman Peter Lim, self-confessed drug distributor Kerwin Espinosa, convicted drug-lord Peter Co and several others.
During Monday’s preliminary investigation, the OSG through Assistant Solicitor Angelita V. Miranda submitted a third supplemental affidavit of Marcelo Adorco.
Adorco was a driver-bodyguard of Kerwin Espinosa. He was arrested on July 8, 2016 during a drug buy-bust operation in Albuera, Leyte. He has been admitted to the Witness Protection Program and is the sole witness of the police in initiating the complaint against Lim and the others.
However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed the case, citing inconsistencies in Adorco’s testimony.
READ: Aguirre: Dismissal of drug case a wakeup call
Aside from Adorco’s supplemental affidavit, the OSG also submitted transcripts of the 2016 Senate hearings on the investigation of the killing of Espinosa’s father, Albuera, Leyte Mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr. and the 2002 House of Representatives committee on dangerous drugs report over the inquiry on the drug activities of Lim and his brother Wellington.
Also submitted was a certified true copy of the “blue book” of Bebeth Rebecca Diano identifying the personalities under Espinosa’s payola as well as the sworn affidavit of another respondent, Jessamin “Lovely” Impal.
The OSG also submitted travel records from the Bureau of Immigration (BI) which showed Adorco flew with Espinosa to Thailand in 2015 where they met with Lim; and the artist sketch and computerized composite of Lim dated August 29, 2017 as described by Adorco.
Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Juan Pedro Navera, who heads the panel of prosecutors conducting the preliminary investigation of the complaint, gave the respondents until May 15 to file their respective counter-affidavits.
Under the complaint, Lim and his co-respondents are accused of violating Section 26 (b) in relation to Section 5 (Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals) of Republic Act 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
