Actually, the Executive Department’s role in this case is to conduct a preliminary investigation through its prosecution arm under the DOJ. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is merely to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has, or crimes have been committed and that the person/s charged with such offense/s should be tried by the courts. It is not the function of the State prosecutors to thoroughly evaluate the evidence and determine the guilt or innocence of the person charged. That is the function of the court. But the investigating prosecutors in this case effectively denied the court from performing its function by dismissing the complaint. Just as the Lower House prevented the trial of impeachment complaint by the Senate, the DOJ of the Executive Department has now prevented the trial of the complaint against Garcillano by the court. And so the people’s hunger for truth and justice remains un-quenched.
The marks of a whitewash are already evident in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. It is supposed to be undertaken by the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office. Why it was transferred to the State Prosecutor’s Office of the DOJ remains hazy. Reports say that the complainants themselves doubted the impartiality of the QC prosecutor. Such doubt is not entirely baseless. But apparently the complainants were left in the dark about the take over of the investigation by a team of State Prosecutors. They claimed to have not been informed about it much less were they properly notified that they have to file a reply affidavit. Such failure was even used as a ground to dismiss their complaint. Another highly dubious circumstance is the release of the Prosecutor’s resolution dismissing the complaint. It was dated (or ante-dated) November 14, 2006 yet it was released only on December 22, 2006 or more than a month later. The question thus lingers: was the November 14, resolution the same as that released on December 22?
To be sure, even without a reply affidavit, the investigators could have determined whether Garcillano should be tried by the court for the charges filed against him. He is accused of falsification and violation of the Passport Act of 1996 because he doctored his passport. He is charged with perjury because of his testimony during the investigation by a Lower House Committee that he never left the country.
For the falsification charge, the evidence submitted to the investigators is the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) laboratory examination report. The BSP which prints the Philippine Passports using security paper found out Garci’s passport "does not conform to standards". By no stretch of imagination could this have any other meaning than that the security paper of Garci’s passport is not the paper used by the BSP. Hence there is already a reasonable ground to believe that it is faked and Garci is probably guilty thereof for using it. So he should have been tried by the court for determination of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The BSP report need not state in no uncertain terms that it was a forgery. This is a conclusion of law left to the court for determination. The report is only concerned with facts.
On the charge of perjury, the complainants submitted the Singapore embassy’s note informing the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) that Garci transited in Singapore on July 14, 2005 and stayed there for one day before boarding a flight for London. Such document alone is enough proof to entertain a reasonable belief that he committed perjury when he testified in a Congressional investigation that he never left the country. If the investigators doubted the authenticity of the note, it is their duty as investigators to find that out from the DFA. Their reason that the testimony was not made under oath is too puerile. They should know as public prosecutors that all Congressional inquiries are conducted under oath.
It is really sad to note that the DOJ’s extra efforts exerted in explaining their grounds for dismissing the complaint against Garci sounds like an apology and a defense in behalf of the latter. Such actions are not compatible with a fair and impartial investigation. On the contrary they indubitably connote another attempt to prevent a more thorough, deliberate and impartial trial by the court of justice to find out the whole truth. It looks like we will continue to be embroiled in another harmful and debilitating political strife at the start of the new year.