EDITORIAL - Was there a thorough probe?

In an alleged anomaly it took years to investigate, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation finally filed a complaint against Lapu-Lapu City Mayor Paz Radaza for allegedly forging bank loans.

In its complaint before the Department of Justice, the PDIC alleged that Radaza, the former president of  Rural Bank of  Subangdaku Inc., and Julius Eullaran, the bank's loans manager, conspired to create a total of 6,052 fictitious loans from 2004 to 2008. 

Since the complaint has already been filed, the ball is now in the hands of the accused. It is now the turn of Radaza and her camp to air their side on the issue. Of course, they would be expected to deny the accusation.

We do not want to delve into the merit of the complaint. It's better for the public to leave the task to the concerned agencies.  As to whether a crime was really committed is for the PDIC to prove.

As for the accused, Radaza and her camp should show proof clearing their names. The best way is for them to exhaust all means submitting evidence that they are not guilty of the crime.

The burden of proof really lies with the PDIC. Since the complaint is based on its own investigation, it is obliged to show it has all the means proving that these fictitious loans were indeed committed.

However, whether the PDIC had enough evidence to come up with a solid conclusion that would pin down Radaza and Eullaran remains to be seen. Let us leave all the decision to the court.

But some sectors are just curious whether the PDIC had launched a thorough probe into the anomaly. That is because many have wondered why only Radaza and Eullaran were singled out. 

In fairness to the PDIC, it did a good job in establishing that fictitious loans were indeed created. But the question remains as to whether its investigation was solid enough.