In his motion, SPO1 Mateo Yanson said there was no evidence that would point to his responsibility in the killing of Pilar Hernandez and her secretary, Wivina Pancho, in the morning of September 9, 2006.
Yanson said the complainants only relied on the statement reportedly uttered by Pancho moments before she died, adding that no witness testified during the preliminary investigation that pointed to his responsibility.
Yanson said even the security guard of Hernandez’s firm, Allan Ambrosio, did not show up during the investigation. He claimed that there was no ante-mortem declaration made by Pancho because based on the autopsy report, her injuries were all fatal that it was already impossible for her to have made such declaration.
Yanson added that there was no medical doctor presented to testify that it was still possible for Pancho to make a declaration in spite of the fatal injuries she sustained. He contended that the affidavit of the late PO2 Jessie Yramis of San Nicolas Police Station was concocted.
According to him, he was just a preconceived suspect by the homicide investigators because Pancho allegedly uttered the words "an," "so" or "sol", which rhymed with his family name.
He said the words "ansol" or "anson" are not definitive of his identity.
Yanson added that the homicide investigators started to make a case initially from the fragmented words "so" or "sol" to "Y" "A" "S" before finally weaving and creatively connecting them to come up with his family name.
He argued that the cartographic sketch of the gunman as described by the driver of the victim does not fit with his facial and physical description.
Yanson said he is hoping that the prosecutor’s office would thoroughly review the facts he cited so his earlier indictment would be reconsidered.  Fred P. Languido/LPM