The junking by the Court of Appeals (CA) of the case and warrant of arrest for Sen. Ping Lacson spells big trouble for the witness against him, his former ward Cesar Mancao.
And I don’t mean PHYSICAL trouble.
Unless Mancao comes up with a CREDIBLE EXPLANATION, and I mean AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, not only will he appear to be the liar.
He will lose CREDIBILITY.
Sa pagbasura sa kaso at warrant llaban kay Lacson, pinuna ng CA na PAIBA-IBA ang naging mga deklarasyon ni Mancao sa pagiging utak kuno ni Lacson ng Dacer-Corbito double murder.
The CA noted, among others, that 10 years ago, Mancao denied knowledge of an operation to kill Dacer. In a March 1, 2007, affidavit, Mancao said he had not implicated Lacson.
But, in a February 13, 2009 affidavit, Mancao claimed then police Senior Superintendent Michael Ray Aquino had said the plan had been cleared by Lacson and Malacanang.
I have to agree with the CA that there’s a whale of a difference in these claims of Mancao.
Kaya bukod sa KAPANI-PANIWALANG paliwanag kung bakit paiba—iba ang pahayag niya, makabubuti kay Mancao na maglabas na agad siya ng ebidensiya.
SETTLE the issue, once and for all. Not only in the interest of justice and fair play but also for the sake of the Dacer and Corbito families.
I sure hope Mancao realizes that he will be the BIGGEST LOSER if he will fail to convincingly clarify his inconsistencies, as well as present proof of his allegations against Lacson.
NOBODY will believe him anymore. He will be dropped like the proverbial hot potato by the same people who used him. He’ll have nowhere else to go.
Pagisipan mong mabuti ang susunod mong hakbang, Mr. Mancao.
***
A follower who asked not to be named on “Government had better tell us how we will survive:”
Sa lahat ng bumoto kay PNOY, sana malaman nila na wala siyang kakayahan o kaalaman maging Presidente! 30
Wait and see muna tayo kay PNoy. Too early to judge him. The previous government din naman looks okay sa umpisa (and bothered by coups) pero nagtiis mga Pilipino.
ReplyDeletemancao's sworn statements speak for themselves. setting aside partiality, or without pre-judging lacson, even a komik's reader can readily observe that there are discrepancies in the statements of mancao. credibility has two factors: credibility of the witness and the credibility of his testimony. some questions are: why only now mancao; what drives you to implicate lacson. further explanations will only result to more questions which will cast more doubts on the credibilty of mancao.
ReplyDelete