Palparan aide denies role in disappearance of 2 UP activists

MANILA, Philippines - The alleged former aide of retired Army Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan denied any involvement in the disappearance of two student activists of the University of the Philippines five years ago.

In his appearance before a Department of Justice (DOJ) panel, Army Staff Sergeant Edgardo Osorio denied the charge of the mothers of Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeño that he was among those who seized the two UP students in Bulacan in 2006.

In a three-page counter affidavit, Osorio said he was not a former aide of Palparan and was not assigned to the Army’s 7th Infantry Batallion (IB), at the time of the alleged abduction. He asked the investigating panel to check his military records to confirm that he was never assigned as aide to Palparan or the 7th IB.

He said, he was in fact, assigned at the Army Personnel Management Center based in Fort Bonifacio in Taguig City from May to July 2006.

“I was never instructed nor under the direct command and control of (Palparan) at any given time. Worth noting, I met him only when I was detailed to secure his safety at the DOJ hearing on July 19, 2011,” he said.

“I have no participation in the alleged rape, serious physical injuries, arbitrary detention, maltreatment of prisoners, grave threats, grave coercion, and violation of Republic Act No. 7438 (An Act Defining the Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained, or Under Custodial Investigation) on Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeño,” he added.

He said the supposed witnesses of the complainants – Alberto Ramirez and Wilfredo Ramos – were only engaging in a “fishing expedition.”

Osorio was included in the list of respondents in an amended complaint filed by the mothers last Aug. 15, based on the testimony of Ramos, who positively identified Osorio through a photograph presented by the Armed Forces during a preliminary investigation of charges of torture and abduction against Palparan and the other respondents.

However, Osorio said he never met Cadapan and Empeño throughout his military career and that he has no “direct or indirect knowledge whatsoever on their alleged disappearances. “

The camp of the complainants however insisted that Osorio had a role in the disappearance of the two student activists. Their lawyer Edre Olalia claimed Osorio’s denial will not hold water considering that Ramos had positively identified the latter as among the men who seized the students.

“The cardinal rule on evidence is that alibi is the weakest defense, especially if there is a positive categorical identification. An alibi is very incredulous in the face of a very positive identification by an eye witness,” Olalia said.

He added that it was expected that military records will not bear out Osorio’s alleged participation in the abduction, because it was a covert operation.

Apart from Palparan and Osorio, the other respondents in the case are: Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac (commanding officer of the 56th IB), Lt. Col. Felipe Anotado (commanding officer of the 25th IB), 2nd Lt. Francis Mirabelle Samson, retired M/Sgt. Rizal Hilario, and retired M/Sgt. Donald Caigas (of the 24th IB).