Monday 24 September, 2018
Powered by Ajaxy

DOJ junks Cebu businessman Peter Lim’s alibi

Sharing is caring!

Once again, the Department of Justice on Friday upheld the time-honored legal principle that alibi is the weakest defense.

This as government prosectors found probable cause to charge Cebu businessman Peter Lim, self-confessed drug lord Kerwin Espinosa, and several other individuals for conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading.

The DoJ junked Lim’s alibi that he could not have been positively identified in Thailand during the time attested by co-respondent Marcelo Adorco because “he was somewhere else.”

The DoJ stressed alibi has to “yield to the positive and affirmative statements.”

In a resolution, government prosecutors said that Lim, Espinosa, Adorco, Ruel Malindangan, et al. will be indicted for violation of Section 26(b) in relation to Section 5, Article Il of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) before the Makati City regional trial court.

The DoJ pointed out that the admission of Espinosa during the legislative investigation of the Senate Committees on Justice and Public Order, together with Adorco’s positive identification of Lim as one of Kerwin’s suppliers of dangerous drugs, is sufficient to establish probable cause to charge them with conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading.

“The Panel (of prosecutors) reiterates that conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading is a distinct offense under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and that the agreement to trade in drugs is the gravamen of the offense,” the DoJ said.

“The drugs themselves as corpus delicti of drug trading are not essential under Section 26(b) of the law,” it continued.

Also, the DoJ said that the defense of Lim that he is not one alias “Jaguar” was immaterial, as he was positively identified by both Espinosa and Adorco.

In its July 19, 2018, the DoJ panel likewise found probable cause to charge respondents Espinosa, Wu Tuan Yan a.k.a. Peter Co, Adorco, Lovely A. Impal Malindangan with violation of Section 26(b) in relation to Section 5, Article Il of Republic Act No. 9165, after a separate investigation.

Copyright © 2018 Abogado - Latest News in the Philippines