Army Headquarters not safe from thieves ?, Daring, or would anyone believe ?

The Philippine Army lost nearly half a million pesos (P400,00.00) to thieves who broke into the Finance Section at Fort Bonifacio in Taguig City, a police report released Wednesday said.

The report from the National Operations center at Camp Crame said the theft was discovered around 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, right after the daily formation, when Sgt. Ernesto Silao entered the office and found the steel vault open and the cash missing.

Silao immediately informed his superiors of the incident.

The report said investigators found no sign of forced entry, as the office lock was intact. The vault's padlock, however, was missing, the report said.

The report quoted Silao as saying only two persons-Major Ramon Torres, chief of the operation and intelligence section, and Captain Carlito Lachica, finance section chief - have duplicate keys to the vault.

He was also quoted saying the vault's padlock had been defective for a long time.

The police report said there were 18 soldiers in the vicinity at the time the theft wwas discovered.

The Inquirer

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Although the facts seem to allude inside job, let us give them the benefit of the doubt and presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. The two key holders should be the center of the investigation and also army personnel seen in the vicinity when the vault was allegedly noticed already interfered with.

The two officers who are key holders should voluntarily submit themselves to a polygraph test to clear themselves of the suspicion if they have nothing to do with the heist.

Let us just wait for the updated developments of this case.

This post has been edited by Fmr TOPP Awardee 82'PNP on Feb 4 2009, 05:17 PM

The two officers who are key holders should voluntarily submit themselves to a polygraph test to clear themselves of the suspicion if they have nothing to do with the heist.

but dont you not that a polygraph test is not very accurate and is not even accepted as evidence in Philippine courts.

Along with looking for the thieves, maybe they shoiuld review and revise their opsec procedures.

This is indeed very suspicious. Wala naman siguro civilian na makapasok dun sa area ng safe. Dapat imbestigahan ito ng maayos. Much better kung other agency like the PNP or the NBI ang magspearhead ng imbestigasiyon para maiwasan ang anumang tangkang cover-up.

I know, polygraph test is only a guide to determine the accuracy of the subject's statements in relevance with the truth of the matter in question.

If the subject fails the test in which case cannot be used as evidence against him, investigators will now be guided to explore circumstances that may link to them to the crime in question.

What I mean for these key holders to volunteer for a test, is to erase the doubts of their involvement or complicity. They are military officers. They are morally bound to set an example for the positive solution of the crime committed under their turf and to erase some wild but reasonable suspicions. They must remember that this case involved government property under their care, which they were sworn to protect.

Narinig ko sa DZRH meron daw financial problem yung isa sa mga finance officer dun at siya yung pinaka main suspect.

Now, things are starting to emerge. The starting point of the investigation should now be on this subject. However, as the saying goes- a financially distressed man cannot necessarily be the robber. In this regard, it is quite mandatory for him to submit himself to a polygraph test to highlight his innocence.

If he will not volunteer to undergo the polygraph test, he should be requested to do so, and if he will not comply to get rid of self-incrimination, it obviously show that he is hiding something very clear and simple. Then he is the man sought for.

Doesnt that ignore the pressumption of innocence? Seems to rely heavily on disproving an allegation instead of looking for evidence to prove a person's guilt.

as in any organization both military and civilian there will always be an enemy from within.

Giving a statement not under duress is not a violation of the presumption of innocence.
While you have the right to remain silent, you have also the right talk to highlight your innocence, if you have nothing to hide.

Ordinary criminals can easily invoke their constitutional rights to remain silent in most cases where they are guilty to get rid of self-incrimination. In the case at issue, if the officer has nothing to hide why won't he cooperate with the investigation when he is the caretaker of the property or money in question ? No one can violate his constitutional rights to remain silent. However, if he will not co-operate with the inquiry/investigation,
the more that the tides of suspicion will be against him.

Then I believe, the crux of the matter has to lie on how statements are handled. How does the rule of evidence deal with it in Philippine courts? Are statements made prior to being informed that one is a suspect admissable in court and can used against himself? Will the person (this case, the officer) be required to make those statements under oath?
I believe the officer in this case, as long as he is not told officialy he is a suspect, has no responsibility to do anything. He might even have a good slander case if this remains all talk and inuendo. The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulder of the state.
Being in the military jurisdiction, however, I also believe that the AFP can impose a non judicial punishment for the incident happening under his watch or scope of responsibility. Being non judicial avoids most of the legal requirements of evidence/procedures.

This post has been edited by eagle1 on Feb 8 2009, 05:21 AM

Statements under oath undertaken before or after the subject is declared to be a suspect or one of the suspects can be used against or in his (suspects ) favor. The officer in this case whether he is a suspect or not, and under the norms of investigation he has to co-operate with the investigation albeit no one would expect for him to confess even he was guilty of the issue for a simple reason that he should be the first person to shed light on the alleged incident. Although he is not required or compelled to do so, he is morally duty bound to it as a sworn military officer as a good example.

If by the odd turn of events he will confess to have committed the offense in a sworn statement, it need some sort of constitutional requirements for his statement to be admitted as evidence.

Setting aside aspects of inside job suspicion, the military can impose administrative sanctions against the officer concerned for lapses in security that lead to the break-in.

On the issue of slander, it is quite far-fetched unless someone would utter derogatory words against anybody's honor publicly written or oral directly imputing him to be the culprit. In this case he is only among the few individuals to be investigated relevant to this case. Suspecting does'nt constitute libel or slander because there is no direct imputation publicly uttered or written which has specifically pointing or naming him as the one who is responsible, otherwise, law enforcers and prosecutors will be languishing in jail for accusing suspects in criminal cases.

of course polygraph test isn't all that reliable (92%)

The first polygraph machine was invented in 1902 and later on in 1921, a modernized one was invented at the University of California. The same as computers it was nearly on the same era and from then on, technical improvements have been made that at this moment in time, it's accuracy cannot be easily contested despite not always judicially accepted to pin down criminals but it is a great tool to guide law enforcers to determine the credibility and accuracy of suspects's statement. It is also useful to business and private sector.

Morgan & Banks one of the well known international professional job recruiting and placement agency use polygraph machine when interviewing applicants.

Bidding thieves are more of my concerns.