Jude Josue Sabio
IN his testimony, Edgar Matobato pointed out an incident where an NBI agent, identified as a certain Amisola, was allegedly killed by Dutertehimself by spraying bullets from an Uzi. According to Matobato, it was an “overkill.”
Based on Matobato’s account, the Davao Death Squad was in an operation then. The NBI agent appeared to be obstructing it. The agent’s vehicle was parked in such a way that it posed an obstruction. The DDS had a shootout with Amisola after he shot a DDS member who berated him for his obstruction. Initially, Duterte was not with the group, arriving much later at a time when the defiant Amisola, who was a good action man, ran out of bullets, giving the perfect opportunity for the DDS to neutralize him. But Duterte allegedly personally assaulted Amisola with an Uzi firing upon him with a whole round of magazine in an obvious “overkill.”
While Matobato declared that Duterte allegedly created the DDS and gave killing orders for targets, Duterte was not seen in action with the DDS. Allegedly, Duterte merely gave the orders to kill. Since this Amisola incident was a DDS operation as testified by Matobato, it is safe to assume that they had a target to be killed then. That is precisely the role and function of the DDS, having been allegedly created and designed by Duterte, as his announced public policy, to kill petty criminals in order to protect the people of Davao City in the name of public order and safety.
This Amisola incident stands out among all the other incidents narrated by Matobato. It is only in this Amisola incident that Duterte was seen in action by Matobato as a positive eyewitness. It is the only incident where Duterte is positively identified in action portrayed like someone from the gangster movies coming out and pumping a whole Uzi magazine of bullets onto his target.
Certainly, this is far from what Duterte’s allies in the Senate alleged as “hearsay” in referring to Matobato’s whole testimony. Matobato personally saw the incident which is within his personal knowledge. Based on Matobato’s testimony as an eyewitness, Duterte by himself alone allegedly killed a human being who was already defenseless. This is not hearsay. This is positive direct evidence coming from an eyewitness.
From the natural scheme of things, Duterte could have been motivated by his rage over the incident where Amisola obstructed a DDS operation and shot at a DDS official. But even then, it is not a valid, legitimate action for Duterte who, at that precise moment, did not anymore face a serious threat from Amisola.
It was not an act of self-defense or self preservation anymore for Duterte. He allegedly gunned down Amisola in cold-blooded murder, which is contrary to his belated claim that the police should kill only when their life is in serious danger. As a former prosecutor, Duterte knows the strength of an eyewitness account. His alleged murder of Amisola is based on probable cause, at least, which could stand scrutiny in a criminal preliminary investigation.
It can be easily claimed that the police then were acting under a legitimate police operation which was obstructed by Amisola, and that they were not operating under the alleged Davao Death Squad, contrary to the claim of Matobato. It can also be argued that Duterte came later because he was the mayor under whose control the police operation was made.
The problem with this argument is that it is effectively rendered lame and futile by the voluntary and uncoerced public admission of Duterte himself that he is the Davao Death Squad, and that he had killed a thousand people and would kill one hundred thousand more once voted as president. He even publicly announced that he could not kill all the criminals, requesting for an extension of six months in his all-out war on drugs.
Still, it can be conveniently argued that Duterte just said all these in jest as part of his political strategy. But when an ordinary crime suspect in police custody voluntarily makes an admission to a news reporter which is aired on TV, that admission can pin him down. Even if a man in a drinking session admits to a murder, the testimony of a person hearing the admission can also pin him down, as it is evidence of an admission that he committed the murder.
In making his admission, Duterte was not a crime suspect in the sense that he was taken into custody by the police when he made the admissions. His situation is like that of a man in the drinking session admitting to a murder. To be sure, Duterte’s admission was made in the context of an investigation conducted by the CHR on the alleged Davao Death Squad following suspicions of the existence of the DDS. He always boasted that the then CHR chairperson de Lima investigated him but did not file any case against him.
A man would normally not say anything that could implicate him in a murder, or at least could provide a lead to the murder. It is the natural behavior of a normal person who fears being imprisoned. That is precisely the reason that when a person admits to a crime, a statement against his interest which he would not normally make, that admission is considered to be true and binding on him.
Contrary to this normal human behavior of being silent, however, Duterte would easily blurt out public admissions, admitting to 1,700 murders. Since Duterte had made public admissions, his admissions should bind him, just like an ordinary person. His admission should be even more binding on him, because he is a public official bound by the sworn duty to follow the law by telling the truth. While he may conveniently deny, as he is doing now, what he has publicly admitted, his public pronouncements should at least be direct evidence that he made those admissions in public, which are statements against his interest and therefore reliable.
Ironically, Matobato is being crucified for his alleged inconsistencies. According to Pacquiao, a man who changes his statements cannot be believed. If we apply that to Duterte, it is clear that he cannot be believed. We do not know what to believe, his earlier admission or his later denial. But in law, what a person says at the first instance is considered reliable. At the first instance, Duterte has made an admission. This admission is later confirmed by Matobato who identified Duterte as the mastermind of the DDS killings.
The Amisola incident revealed to the nation, for the first time, the Dirty Harry Duterte allegedly in murderous action. As stated by Matobato, it was at first a DDS operation which appeared to be blocked by Amisola’s vehicle. Based on this positive statement, it is safe to say that Duterte ordered a hit. But the hit could not be carried out because of Amisola’s obstruction, whether intended or not. Consistent with his nature, Duterte flew into a rage and allegedly murdered Amisola in cold-blood. At bottomline, this incident, at least, exposed to the nation the alleged murderous behavior of Duterte, thereby lending credence to Matobato’s claim that Duterte is the Mafiosi godfather of the Davao Death Squad, more fittingly called Duterte Death Squad.
As earlier pointed out, Duterte admitted his link to the Davao Death Squad, saying that it is true that he is the Davao Death Squad. It is even more fitting to call it the Duterte Death Squad.
Matobato testified that Duterte allegedly gave the orders for the operations of the Davao Death Squad, more fittingly described as the Duterte Death Squad. Duterte frequented the Heinous Crime Section of the Davao Police. This section provided the police cum murderers for the squad.
The policemen will be in civilian clothes with other people in a holding room, where Matobato will be asked to point them out.
De Lima, quoting Matobato, identified the 19 policemen and four civilians as Senior Superintendents Rey Capote, Tony Rivera, DionisioAbude and Isidero “Dick” Floribel/Florobel; Chief Inspectors Jacy “Jay” Francia, FulgencioPavo and Ronald Lao; Senior Police Officers 4 Arthur Lascanas and Sanson “Sonny” Buenaventura; Senior Police Officers 3 Jim Tan, Jun Laresma, Donito “Pogi” Ubales; Senior Police Officers 2 Enrique “Jun” delos Reyes Ayao and Rizalino “Bobong” Aquino; Senior Police Officers 1 Reynante Medina, BienvenidoFurog, Vivencio “Jun” Jumawan, Jun Bisnar, Gaston Aquino, Bienvenido Laud, Alvin Laud, RolyEngalia and Arnold Ochavez.
Carlos said the PNP’s Directorate for Personnel and Records Management (DPRM) were verifying the names of the policemen as well as their status in the police service. According to the DPRM’s initial report, 10 remain in active service, with eight still assigned in Davao, and two assigned to the Presidential Security Group. Eight have retired while one is deceased.
Carlos said the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) and the Directorate Investigation and Detection Management (DIDM) will determine whether there are pending complaints against the named policemen and look for the police reports they had submitted to national headquarters.
(Jude JosueSabio is a lawyer from Misamis Oriental.)
