
General articles are free for 24 hours after publish.
Sara Duterte camp slams dismissal of raps vs Madriaga as 'political'
The camp of Vice President Sara Duterte has slammed the dismissal of a perjury complaint against Ramil Madriaga as a "political decision." Duterte's camp insists the evidence was sufficient and suggests the administration is protecting false testimony that could have been a basis for impeaching the vice president.
MANILA, Philippines — The camp of Vice President Sara Duterte on Friday slammed what they described as the “political decision” of prosecutors to dismiss the perjury complaint against Ramil Madriaga. Duterte’s spokesperson Paolo Panelo Jr. made the statement after the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Taguig City issued a 19-page resolution Thursday, junking Duterte’s complaint against Madriaga due to “insufficiency of evidence.” “A prosecutor who truly weighed the evidence would not have reached this result,” Panelo said in a statement. “It can therefore only be a political decision.” Panelo noted that they had to file this complaint with OCP Taguig, which he stressed is under the Department of Justice headed by Secretary Fredderick Vida. Vida is part of the Cabinet of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the vice president’s former ally. “We understood the political realities from the outset, and publicly warned of this possibility,” he said. According to Panelo, Duterte’s case was “airtight” with the first complaint containing 300 pages and the second 50-page second perjury complaint, supported by five additional corroborating testimonies. “If a complaint of that strength can be discarded, then the message is simple: a man may brazenly lie under oath against the Vice President, and this administration will protect the lie if it is politically useful,” he said. “Indeed, it would seem that they could not afford to do otherwise because this would amount to confirmation from the government itself that one of the bases for the impeachment against the vice president was perjured testimony,” he continued. The prosecutors, in their resolution, noted that while Duterte presented evidence disputing the respondent’s assertions, it “does not establish prima facie with reasonable certainty of conviction that respondent knowingly and willfully made materially false statements under oath” under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code. It was in March when Duterte filed her first perjury complaint before the Taguig Prosecutor’s Office against Madriaga after her supposed former aide submitted an affidavit to the Office of the Ombudsman claiming that he had delivered large sums of money to different people under her instructions. Duterte has denied such accusations, noting that she does not personally know Madriaga.
Original source
Inquirer NewsInfo