DOJ indicts Lim for drug trading
The Department of Justice (DOJ) yesterday morning filed two counts of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading against Cebu businessman Peter Go Lim before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Makati City.
DOJ Acting Prosecutor General Richard Anthony Fadullon said they found probable cause to charge Lim, Rolan “Kerwin” Espinosa, Marcelo Adorco, Ruel Malindangan and others.
They were accused to have violated Section 26 (B) in relation to Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
It was at the Cash & Carry in Makati City where Lim reportedly agreed to supply Espinosa with illegal drugs. Despite Lim’s repeated denial that he was the “Jaguar” being referred to as a top drug lord is immaterial, the DOJ relied on the admission made by Espinosa during the legislative investigation of the Senate Committees on Justice and Public Order, along with Adorco’s positive identification of Lim as one of Espinosa’s suppliers as sufficient grounds to establish probable cause to charge them with conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading.
DOJ Senior Assistant State Prosecutor (SASP) Juan Pedro Navera said that they utilized the “interlocking confession” made by Espinosa and Adorco against Lim.
“The positive identification of Adorco (of Lim), the admission of Kerwin Espinosa as to their dealings with Peter Go Lim were the basis of our probable cause, determination against all of them not just Peter Go Lim,” Navera added.
Aside from SASP Navera, the other members of the DOJ Panel are SASP Anna Noreen Devanadera and Prosecution Attorney Herbert Calvin Abugan.
Navera's panel is the second to conduct the preliminary investigation of the complaint filed by the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) against the four as well as convicted drug lord Peter Go.
It can be recalled that the first panel, composed of Assistant State Prosecutor Michael John Humarang and former Assistant State Prosecutor and now Judge Aristotle Reyes, issued a resolution on December 20, 2017 dismissing the complaint due to the weak evidence since the PNP relied only to the inconsistent statements of Adorco.
Navera explained that the difference in the resolutions of the first and the second panels was due to the pieces of evidence that were made available.
“During the first panel there were pieces of evidence that were not submitted. And also pieces of evidence that were submitted to the second panel were the crucial pieces of evidence. That's why we found probable cause,” he said.