On November 1, 2010, Andaman Mokiding Binago was arrested by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in a lodging house in Davao City. The NBI claimed that he and the actual accused, Danny Mokiding y Mohamad are one and the same person and charged him with murder charges for allegedly bombing a lottery stall in January 10, 2007 killing six people and wounding 20 others. In his testimony provided to the AHRC, he alleged that during his arrest:
Photo: Andaman Mokiding Binago
“When I open the door, they kicked my chest and back until I fell to the floor. They told me that there was a warrant of arrest for me and also the NBI officer told me explain only to the court.
On that day also they brought me straight to National Bureau of Investigation, General Santos City in a car. They detained me inside the NBI for eight days. They accused me of being a cell phone snatcher and suspect in the bombing incident in the Lotto outlet near the public market, General Santos City, Mindanao.
While I was detained in the NBI cell they tortured me by kicking my chest and back until I felt severe pain in the chest. I tried to complain about the torture they did to me but suddenly the NBI officer offered his regrets but disregarded my complaint about the torture.
After eight days in the NBI cell they forwarded me to the General Santos City Jail and put me in a dark cell where I could not mingle with the other prisoners.”
The murder charge on Andaman is based on the testimony of Rodeliza Bajuyo, one of the witnesses and dated February 7, 2007, claiming to have ‘positively identified’ a man carrying an explosive in a back pack which exploded in the stall. Rodeliza’s identification of Andaman, however, was not until after his arrest on November 1, 2010, and it was only after the policemen presented to him photographs of persons in their ‘rouges gallery.’ From the charges of being a “celphone snatcher” as shown in the mug shot, additional murder charges in connection to the bomb blast were laid on him. Now, he is no longer a petty thief but a bomber engaged in terrorist attacks, in the police records.
In addition to Rodeliza’s statement, the police had secured a statement from Gerald Mamaluba, a man who was formerly imprisoned for robbery; and claimed to have personally known “Dami Mukiding Binago @ Andaman” dated July 9, 2008. The police claimed that Andaman and “Dami Mukiding Binago” are one and the same person. In Gerald’s account, he described the person he knew as a member of Special Operations Group of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), a rebel group.
But the information in either Rodeliza’s or in Gerald’s testimonies revealed precisely that the person whom the police arrested, Andaman; and the accused who was originally charged, Danny Mokiding, are one person. In Andaman’s account, he was tortured, detained for eight days without any assistance from legal counsel, and held incommunicado.
If indeed the evidence of the police was that strong, there was no need to torture the victim, and force him to admit that he was the accused they were looking for. However, it is clear that the police heavily relied on the testimony of Gerald, whose credibility if questionable; and Rodeliza, whose identification of the accused was influenced by the arresting police by showing her photographs of criminals. Although she was able to provide a facial description of the suspect in a cartographic sketch; however, it appears that apart from the police and prosecution’s heavily relying on her testimony as evidence, there is no other evidence on police record in prosecuting the victim.
Whether the evidence on Andaman is sufficient enough to get a conviction is up for the court to decide. However, the delay in trying the case has aggravated the possibilities of remedy either for him and victims of bomb blast. Since his arrest, Andaman was never tried in court; his private lawyer withdrew as his legal counsel to represent him in court because he could not afford her fee, hearings were postponed repeatedly due to judges taking leave, and so on. The Public Attorney’s Office also took time in giving him legal counsel so as to proceed with his trial. Also, despite the victim’s allegations he was tortured neither his PAO lawyer nor the PAO, which institutionally has a legal mandate to investigate allegations of torture, took up his complaint by initiating an investigation.
The excessive delay in the trial of the accused in the bomb blast, which include Andaman, has deprived the victims and their families of an effective remedy for the loss of lives and wounding of their loved ones. Six years has already passed since the crime happened, but none of the accused has been tried; and as for those who have been arrested and detained, their innocence or guilt cannot be proven anytime soon. Therefore this demonstrates the government’s lack of sincerity in resolving heinous crimes promptly.
Also, the torturing of Andaman by the officers who arrested him, their refusal to take his complaints of torture seriously, and so on; could undermine the possibility of remedy that the victims of the bomb blast are pinning their hopes on. As already mentioned, if the police are convinced the evidence against Andaman is strong, there was no need to torture him, because legally this could lead to dismissal of evidence against him taken by way of torture for violation of this person’s Constitutional and Statutory rights. It is clear that torturing a suspect is a criminal offence, it does more harm than good, and obstructs the truth-finding process, but this case once again illustrates how law enforcers routinely break the law it ought to be enforcing.
Lastly, the AHRC urges the government to ensure the speedy trial of those arrested, detained and prosecuted for bombings, and that their allegations of torture are investigated. The government’s failure to ensure speedy trial of this case would mean denial of an effective remedy, both by the victims of bomb attacks, for the deaths and wounding of their loved ones; and those accused for this crimes, who had been tortured to admit the crime. This will lead to further loss of confidence in the country’s system of justice.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
