Police: No physical evidence in arson case vs. Jade Castro, 3 others

This is from news selected image.

Police officials on Monday admitted that they have no physical evidence linking film director Jade Castro and his three friends to the crime of arson for allegedly setting to fire a modern jeepney.

Police Senior Master Sergeant Jonjon Pordan and Police Captain Daniel dela Cruz of Catanauan, Quezon Philippine National Police (PNP) disclosed this during the inquiry on the warrantless arrest of Castro and his three companions last January 31.

House Assistant Minority Leader Arlene Brosas asked Pordan, “Meron ba nakuha sa area ng sunog na maglilink sa apat sa insidente?”

Pordan replied, “Bale, wala pong nakuha.”

Brosas then followed it up by asking if Castro and his friends’ warrantless arrests were only based on the identification of supposed witnesses, to which Pordan answered, “identification lang po ng witnesses.”

Following Pordan’s replies, Brosas questioned the cops’ move to arrest Castro and company based on hot pursuit. This was the same basis used by prosecutors in finding probable cause to pursue the arson charges against Castro, Ernesto Orcinem, Noel Mariano, and Dominic Valerio Ramos.

“Sinabi niyo, hot pursuit. In hot pursuit, dapat may sense of immediacy kasi mawawala iyong crucial information or evidence. Doon sa sinasabi niyo, wala kayong ebidensya? (You said it was in hot pursuit. In a hot pursuit, there must be a sense of immediacy because crucial information or evidence could get lost. Are you saying that you don’t have that evidence that could be lost?),” Brosas said.

Pordan answered, “Yes.”

Brosas lamented that such a situation does not hold water in filing charges against Castro and company.

“Under the Supreme Court ruling, the reason for immediacy is on the consideration that as the time gap from the commission of the crime and the arrest widens, the pieces of information gathered are grown to become contaminated and subjected to external factors, interpretations, and hearsay,” Brosas said.

“So, kung wala namang physical evidence, puro [galing] sa witness, doon lang tayo nagde-dwell…tingin ko, we need to know more about the specifics of the case,” she added.

House public order and safety panel chairman Dan Fernandez, backed Brosas, saying that it is puzzling on why the police never searched the resort where Castro and friends were staying for physical evidence and chose to rely on witnesses’ accounts alone.

“That is why I was asking you if you have searched the hotel [resort], their vehicles, if you saw something there. Was there gas? A bottle? That would be ideal. But you did not do it,” Fernandez added.

The lawmaker then called out the PNP for taking photos of the suspects in the resort where they were staying based on information from Mulanay PNP, and not on personal knowledge.

“You said you are in a hot pursuit situation, so [you did] warrantless arrest. The search of the premises should be considered as well in a hot pursuit situation. Sinabi ba ni [certain] Sergeant Aying [ng Mulanay] na meron siyang personal knowledge na ‘yun talaga ang nagsunog?.”

(Did Mulanay PNP tell you that they have personal knowledge that these suspects committed arson?)

Dela Cruz replied, “Wala naman, sir.”

In addition, Fernandez called out Pordan and dela Cruz for showing the photos of Castro and his friends to witnesses for positive identification, a violation of the protocol to show photos of both persons of interest and non-persons of interest to test the credibility of the witnesses.

“Dapat may kasamang iba [iyong mga pictures ng suspects]. Hindi nagawa iyon para makita ang credibility ng witnesses. Iyong nakita ng witness, doon na tayo nagfocus, hindi na kinunsidera iyong ibang bagay,” Fernandez said.

(You should have shown photos of persons of interest and non-persons of interest, But you did not do that and just focused on the witnesses’ accounts and disregarded other factors.)

When Surigao del Norte lawmaker Ace Barbers asked the police on the motive of suspects Castro and his friends in burning the modern jeep, Pordan said it was because of Castro’s social media post against the public utility vehicle modernization program (PUV).

“Isa nga po sa sinasabi naming possible [motive] based sa aming cyber patrolling, ito nga pong si Jade Castro, hindi po siya sumusuporta sa modernization ng jeep,” Pordan said.

(Based on our cyber patrolling, Castro is against jeepney modernization.)

Barbers repeated his question on the cops’ take on the motive of the suspects based on the police report and the statements of the witnesses.

Dela Cruz reiterated their cyber patrolling showing Castro’s opposition to the jeepney modernization.

But when Barbers asked if such a motive is grave enough to be charged before court, Dela Cruz acknowledged that such social media posts were not the reason Castro and his friends were charged but because they were identified by witnesses.

Barbers argued that the police’s apparent failure to establish motive did not help in building up a strong case against Castro and friends.

“The [reason for the] arrest and the filing of charges against the suspects must be first established by the police for the prosecutor to have a solid basis to file a case. But even the witnesses’ statements vary,” Barbers said.—LDF, GMA Integrated News

This article Police: No physical evidence in arson case vs. Jade Castro, 3 others was originally published in GMA News Online.