PNP reiterates request to allow transfer of massacre evidence

MANILA, Philippines – The Philippine National Police (PNP) will reiterate its request to the court to allow the transfer of custody of the pieces of evidence in the Nov. 23 Maguindanao massacre from General Santos City Police headquarters to Camp Crame in Quezon City.

PNP chief Director General Raul Bacalzo said the evidence, vital to the multiple murder case being heard by Quezon City Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes, should be secured.

Bacalzo noted that he was still chief of the PNP-Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management (DIDM) when the PNP made the request for the transfer of evidence.

He said he will also seek the support of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the transfer request.

Bacalzo said the evidence were mostly high-powered firearms recovered from the property of the Ampatuans, an influential clan in Maguindanao implicated in the gruesome massacre.

He said that the evidence, which remain in the custody of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) in General Santos City, could be better secured if these are taken to Camp Crame.

Joint police and military authorities have so far unearthed some 1,163 assorted firearms and 1.1 million assorted ammunitions during several raids in and around properties identified with the Ampatuans after the carnage last November in which 57 were killed, including at least 30 journalists.

Authorities said the firearms range from ordinary pistols to mortars to powerful 90-mm recoilless rifles and they are still looking for 600 more firearms supposedly in the clan’s possession.

Court denies indicted cops motion

Meanwhile, Judge Solis-Reyes denied for lack of merit the motion for judicial determination of probable cause filed by the policemen and affirmed a March 24 order on their indictment.

Of the 29 indicted policemen, 26 belonged to the 1507th Maguindanao Provincial Mobile Group while three were from the 1508th Regional Mobile Group.

The policemen claimed that the DOJ “committed a manifestly grave error in interpreting their mere presence near the alleged crime scene to be a sign of conspiracy because their presence was in compliance with a Nov. 19, 2009 security plan for the filing of candidacy papers.”

But the court said the mere presence at the crime scene was not a sign of conspiracy, rather the court was of the view that the “probability of the existence of conspiracy among the accused in the commission of the crime charged cannot be ruled out at this stage.” – With Reinir Padua