Espinosa’s retraction

IT WAS an unexpected twist in the saga of the country’s drugs network when confessed drug lord Kerwin Espinosa recanted his statement linking a town police officer to the trade.

Espinosa, acknowledged by the police as the biggest drug lord in Eastern Visayas, was expected to come up with a testimony that was foolproof, sure and reliable against personalities involved in the trafficking of illegal drugs. He gave his testimony before the Senate committee on public order and dangerous drugs that was investigating the death of Albuera Mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr., Kerwin’s father, during a police search at the subprovincial jail of Baybay City last Nov. 5.

Espinosa had revealed names of those in the trade in Eastern and Central Visayas during his testimony.

But in a press briefing Monday, Philippine National Police Chief Ronald Dela Rosa said Espinosa corrected his earlier statement given to the Senate committee. Dela Rosa said Espinosa took back his statements against Albuera, Leyte, police chief Jovie Espenido. Espinosa said he had given money to Espenido but it was for the church, not for protection of his illegal drug trade. Dela Rosa quoted Espinosa as saying that text messages to Espenido were answered with biblical verses because “ayaw kumagat sa drug money (he can’t be tempted with drug money).” Espenido has yet to comment on Espinosa’s retraction. Espinosa earlier said Espenido allegedly planted evidence on him and his father.

What does Espinosa’s correcting of his statement mean? That his testimony to the Senate committee was not perfect, not fully reliable because of a hole in the story there and, perhaps, there too. It could also be taken as a reflection of the kind of witnesses brought to the Senate or House to aid members in legislating new rules to curb or kill the drug trade.

Another controversial testimony was made last week before the House committee on justice by Ronnie Dayan, former driver-paramour and alleged bagman of Senator Leila de Lima. Dayan said De Lima received payoffs from drug lords when she was justice secretary. He has so far stuck to his words against De Lima and about the ties of drug lords operating in prisons.

To avoid having to correct earlier statements or to prevent holes in their testimonies, there must be an investigation of what the witnesses were to say before the hearing. There is no need to rush to a hearing upon the capture of the witness to the congressional investigation. A little more time would probably iron out the kinks. Don’t hold the committee hearings right away. In the case of Dayan, he was presented to the House committee after just one day of rest from his arrest.

There should be some deliberation before witnesses get called to make allegations on individuals in public statements or testimonies. Not only are reputations on the line but also relationships that can be strained by reckless imputations.

The Senate and House must go slow in presenting witnesses to hearings without thorough evaluation of their testimonies. Study those statements – or even better, let the prosecution bodies do the investigating of those witnesses towards the building of cases that would stand in court.

What does Espinosa’s correcting of his statement mean? That his testimony to the Senate committee was not perfect