MANILA, Philippines - A former Army bomb expert who earlier alleged that the Glorietta 2 mall in Makati City was bombed on Oct. 19, 2007 said during a hearing yesterday he is set to present one more piece of evidence to support his claim.
Former colonel Allan Sollano, who headed an Army explosives and ordnance team who responded to the explosion, told a Department of Justice (DOJ) panel reinvestigating the incident that he has with him a specimen he would present during the next hearing, set on Nov. 30.
Sollano said he got hold of the specimen at the scene a few days after the blast.
Yesterday was the first day of the hearing conducted by a panel of state prosecutors led by Senior State Prosecutor Peter Ong.
According to an official of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, they only learned of Sollano’s “specimen” yesterday. The official said if it is proven that Sollano picked up a vital piece of evidence from the crime scene, he could be charged with tampering with or withholding evidence.
According to the crime lab official, members of the Army’s bomb squad may only assist the police in securing the blast site and detonating any unexploded second explosive, but not collect and handle evidence.
Sollano earlier personally submited to DOJ Secretary Leila de Lima an affidavit detailing results of an earlier probe reportedly concealed by the Arroyo administration.
He did not say what prompted the alleged cover-up, but President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was at the time barraged with calls for her resignation due to mounting accusations of corruption under her administration.
Sollano said he did not release his report upon instruction of his superiors then. Although Sollano did not name any of his superiors in his affidavit, he had reported that Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) chief Gen. Ricardo David, then Army Support Command head, instructed him to gloss over the bomb angle.
In yesterday’s hearing, David said while he instructed Sollano not to talk to the media, he also instructed him to cooperate with the initial investigation that was conducted by the PNP.
David also told the panel that Sollano did not submit a written spot report regarding the blast but only verbally informed him that the Army team found a plastic bag containing about 50 kilos of commercial fertilizer.
“I did not see a spot report. He just told me a story that it was an explosive device. I told him (Sollano) to tell everything to the PNP through the commanding general of the Philippine Army,” said David.
During yesterday’s hearing, Sollano maintained that the mall was indeed bombed, as shown by the “petalling” of the metal plate of the diesel tank in the mall basement, the site of the explosion.
He said he also found a piece of plastic on top of the diesel tank and submitted it for forensic examination by the PNP crime lab. The plastic, he said, later tested positive for RDX, a component of C4, a type of plastic explosive.
Sollano also told the panel that the explosive was placed inside the diesel tank. The explosion, he said, caused the top of the tank to have a “petalling” effect.
“Only a high explosive can inflict petalling on metal,” he said, adding that it would only take two pounds of C4 to create that “petalling.”
Chief Inspector Victor Drapete, head of the PNP crime lab’s chemistry division, rebuffed Sollano’s claim, saying there were no traces of RDX near and surrounding the diesel tank.
Senior Superintendent Albert Ferro, who formerly headed the PNP’s Bomb Data Center, told the panel that a post-blast investigation of the scene also showed no indications of a high explosive having been detonated.
Ferro, however, admitted there were traces of RDX found on the plastic bag submitted by Sollano and traces on a piece of debris.