Solons hit CIDG chief over missing firearms case

MANILA, Philippines - Lawmakers scored the head of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) for allegedly prematurely naming senior police officers suspected of having involvement in the pilferage of 1,004 high-powered firearms found in the possession of communist rebels.

During the a hearing of the House of Representatives' committee on public order and safety chaired by Negros Occidental Rep. Jeffrey Ferrer on Wednesday, Cebu Rep. Gwendolyn Garcia said CIDG Director Benjamin Magalong's "premature" identification of the police officers seemed an attempt either to lead the panel to the conclusions of agency's own probe or to hide the truth.

Garcia added that the House committee is being preempted by the CIDG chief's pronouncement in the media last week about the filing of cases against certain police officers.

"How else can we still objectively question them when we try to get to the bottom of this whole fiasco when the CIDG’s own investigation has pinpointed them to be the personalities culpable and responsible and must answer criminally and administratively," Garcia said.

In a press conference last June 5, Magalong named certain several police officers who are being suspected of having involvement in the gun pilferage case.

Magalong said cases will also be filed against private individuals including Isidro Lozada, owner of Caraga Security Agency which bought the 1,004 AK 47 assault rifles from Twin Pines and resold these allegedly to the New People’s Army.

CIS partylist Rep. Samuel Pagdilao, vice chairman of the committee, said Magalong should exercise prudence on the matter of handling and the discussing the CIDG investigation in media prior to filing a case.

Pagdilao was a chief of the Philippine National Police's investigating unit.

Pagdilao said Magalong should ensure first that a case is filed and accepted by the fiscal’s office or the Office of the Ombudsman before discussing it with the media.

"So prudence tells it is better to face the media if the case has already been filed and accepted at the Ombudsman or fiscal’s office. Then therefore, you have an assurance the case you filed has a basis, it has a probable cause because it was accepted," he said.

Pagdilao said prematurely discussing in media as to who will be charged in the firearms case is not only an unfair practice, but a wrong legal strategy.

"Not only that you are being unfair to certain people but you also stand the risk of being embarrassed once you filed a case and it is not accepted by the fiscal or Ombudsman. That means you’re back to square one as far as your investigation is concerned," Pagdilao said.