AvSecGroup spokesman Supt. Jeanne Panisan insists that airport police have nothing to do with the laglag bala/tanim bala cam at the NAIA terminals.
She adds that the AvSecGroup is not involved in the screening of passengers and their luggage and that it is impossible for their personnel to be part of the scam.
She adds that the AvSecGroup is not involved in the screening of passengers and their luggage and that it is impossible for their personnel to be part of the scam.
Meanwhile, PNP’s spokesman Chief Superintendent Wilben Mayor, a lawyer, argues that intent is irrelevant and that mere possession of a bullet is a criminal violation.
He claims that the firearms law is "malum prohibitum", where criminal intent does not matter.
He claims that the firearms law is "malum prohibitum", where criminal intent does not matter.
Our Comment:
1. The victims claimed that the airport security/police personnel (OTS, Avsecom) demanded money from them. One victim mentioned the figure P30,000.
Yet the Avsecom did not investigate the said reports of the victims.
The Avsecom did not file the necessary criminal complaints for extortion against the suspects (i.e., their colleagues) for immediate inquest proceedings and subsequent judicial prosecution.
2. It is common knowledge that airport syndicates have their own spotters.
The spotters cannot freely roam inside the airport terminal if they are not TOS/Avsecom personnel and/or authorized individuals.
3. This scam has been going on for several years now.
It continues to exist because it has been institutionalized and internalized as an acceptable criminal livelihood among corrupt airport security personnel.
4. The Avsecom should not act like non-thinking robots.
The duty of Avsecom police investigators is not simply to mechanically and ritualistically refer criminal cases to the inquest prosecutors.
The real duty of Avsecom police investigators and their commanding officers (and inquest prosecutors) is to insure that fairness, truth and justice are done.
Their sworn duty is to protect the constitutional rights of the victims.
The Avsecom police investigators and their commanding officers cannot and should not lazily and nonchalantly hide behind the technical malum prohibitum theory in criminal law.
They must do a sincere profiling of the victims.
If their minds and hearts are convinced that there is clearly no probable cause against victims, their referrals/reports to the inquest fiscals should expressly state their opinion to that effect.
The Avsecom (i.e., law enforcement pillar) is the first pillar in the criminal justice system.
The determination of probable cause is not limited to the powers of the inquest fiscals.
Yes, we admit that the inquest fiscals have the final say on whether or not probable cause exists.
But the Avsecom police investigators and their superiors are not forbidden by law to state in their referrals/reports to the inquest prosecutors that in their honest belief the available proofs of probable cause against the victims are weak.
In such cases, the Avsecom police investigators and their commanding officers must expressly recommend to the inquest prosecutors that the victims be freed from criminal indictment.
This is genuine fairness.
It is also common sense.
