The family of Catherine Camilon, the former beauty queen who has been missing since October last year, expressed disappointment and sadness due to the dismissal of cases against the suspects, former police major Allan de Castro and his alleged driver-bodyguard Jeffrey Magpantay, by the regional prosecutors.
In a resolution dated April 16, the Calabarzon regional prosecutor’s office dismissed the kidnapping and serious illegal detention cases filed against De Castro and Magpantay due to a lack of evidence.
“The instant complaint against both respondents is... ordered dismissed without prejudice,” the resolution read.
Despite circumstantial evidence and testimonies from two witnesses linking De Castro and his alleged driver to Camilon’s disappearance, Assistant Regional Prosecutor Rogelio Radoc Jr. threw out the cases and discarded them.
Although it is the prosecutor's job to assess evidence before bringing it to court, the family and the public want to understand where the shortcomings were or what were the reasons that led to the dismissal.
It could be due to the police's evidence collection or possibly that the prosecution did not thoroughly examine and weigh the presented evidence.
Prosecutor Radoc provided at least four reasons for dropping the case, some of which I find particularly questionable.
While I agree with the prosecutor that photos of De Castro and Camilon allegedly kissing do not prove involvement in kidnapping or serious illegal detention, they do confirm that they were in a relationship.
However, De Castro has repeatedly denied having a relationship with Camilon despite testimonies and material evidence suggesting otherwise.
In fact, a close friend even informed Camilon’s sister about the relationship and mentioned that Camilon was supposed to meet De Castro on the day she disappeared.
Additionally, Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) Director Major General Romeo Caramat shared that De Castro admitted to having a relationship with Camilon.
For argument's sake, let's assume the two had a relationship. While I agree that this does not constitute a crime, it does fill in some missing pieces of the puzzle.
However, I do not agree with the other reasons that the prosecution has laid down.
First, Prosecutor Radoc questioned how the CIDG acquired Magpantay's photograph when the two witnesses, Michael and Jomar, executed their affidavits.
To recall, Michael and Jomar reported seeing Camilon, bloodied, being transferred to another vehicle with Magpantay nearby.
To test their credibility, CIDG personnel showed the two eyewitnesses at least seven photographs, including Magpantay’s picture.
The two positively identified Magpantay as one of the individuals present when they saw Camilon’s alleged bloodied body being transferred to a red Honda CRV.
The prosecutor questioned how CIDG quickly obtained Magpantay's photograph to show to Michael and Jomar during their affidavit execution.
Is Prosecutor Rogelio unaware of the digital age we live in?
Today, almost everyone has pictures on the internet. With just one click, you can
easily get details and photographs of someone if you know the person’s name, job, or even mutual friends.
It is common knowledge among the police that Magpantay is a known associate or “buddy-buddy” of De Castro, so CIDG could easily and legally produce a photo of Magpantay to show to the two witnesses.
Second, hold your breath, because this one is huge and could change the rulebook in our justice system.
The prosecution “gave minimal” or “no credence” to the alleged hair strand of Camilon and the blood-covered sponge found inside the recovered Honda CRV.
Prosecutor Rogelio reasoned that it is contrary to human experience for a criminal to leave evidence in a vehicle used in the commission of a crime.
What?! So, Prosecutor Rogelio is implying that any evidence left by a suspect at a crime scene is hardly acceptable because it is not in the nature of a criminal to leave evidence?
I totally disagree with this.
If we follow that logic, our forensic agents and Scene of the Crime Operatives or SOCO would be out of jobs since the evidence they gather would be deemed useless.
Moreover, no criminals would be convicted because there would be no evidence linking them to the crime scene, since leaving proof of their crimes is not in their nature.
Besides, are they saying that the blood and hair strand found inside the vehicle were planted evidence? By whom? The cops? Or even more absurdly, the real abductors of Camilon just to frame De Castro and his associates?
While it is the duty of Prosecutor Rogelio to evaluate the evidence, he should elevate the case to the court for a full-blown trial.
While a prosecutor is empowered to reject or uphold the case presented to it and recommend its elevation to the court or the judge, it is the latter who has the final say in deciding if the evidence and testimonies are credible, admissible and, most importantly, true.
Comments