As far as Senator Leila De Lima is concerned, the fact that there was zero killing on the first day that Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Bato dela Rosa ordered the suspension of the war on drugs (Operation Tokhang), was ‘palpable proof’ that the PNP or their assets and agents were behind the killings. “So to me, that is strong circumstantial evidence that they (police) are the ones behind the killings,” De Lima said.
The zero killing, it would turn out, didn’t hold, since according to this report from The Inquirer, there were at least four deaths reported on that day.
De Lima is a lawyer (and a BAR TOPNOTCHER) and she sure knows her stuff about ‘circumstantial evidence.’
Following her logic, though, does this mean that in the allegations that the senator benefited from the illegal drug trade inside the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), the following would be considered ‘circumstantial evidence’ of her guilt:
-Photo taken with drug lord Erwin Espinosa in Baguio City
-Inmate testimonies regarding her frequent visits to NBP, allegedly visiting the kubol of drug lord Jaybee Sebastian
-Testimonies of her driver-lover Ronnie Dayan that he received drug money on behalf of the then justice secretary
In addition, was her advice to Dayan to ignore the subpoena for his appearance before a Congressional hearing on the illegal drug trade a ‘circumstantial evidence’ that she was afraid of a potential testimony that would implicate her?
De Lima knows that both direct and circumstantial evidence are admissible in a judicial court, so she seems to be playing the aces in her own game of cards.
But will this eventually come around to haunt her if and when the time comes that she has to defend herself in a court of law? Against ‘circumstantial evidence?’
It’s just a question from a non-lawyer!