Glane (not Glenn) Dumlao issued three affidavits in connection with the Dacer-Corbito case. The first was on June 12, 2001, the second on May 20, 2003, and the third on March 2, 2007. Many have said that the first linked Senator Lacson to the murder, that the second recanted that allegation, and that the third reaffirmed the first, thereby putting Lacson back into the suspect category. A careful reading of the affidavits, however, reveals that all three support each other, and the only conclusion that can be derived from them is that Lacson was not implicated by Dumlao.
The first affidavit reveals the following salient facts:
1. Michael Ray Aquino gave a “tasking” to Dumlao, to sniff around, ascertain the activities of Dacer, and if ever, steal documents or destroy them. These are found in the following statements:
a. "to conduct discreet background investigation…"(bottom paragraph page 1, handwritten affidavit)b. "to surreptitiously enter the rooms and take whatever documents I can and also to monitor personalities/visitors of our subject" (top paragraph, page 2 handwritten affidavit).
2. The sniffing around is supported by the statements in the third affidavit, where Dumlao states: “My participation to conduct tactical interrogation at that time falls on the purview of regularity in the performance of my duty having been instructed by a superior officer P/COL AQUINO for a person involved in unseating a duly elected president.”
3. Dumlao was unsuccessful, so the “tasking” was shelved for a while, as Dumlao went to training (“schooling”) and later did other tasks (first two paragraphs, page 3 handwritten affidavit);
4. The tasking regarding sniffing around for info on activities by Dacer was not made known to Lacson until after the fact. This is seen in the following exchange:
Mancao: Clear na ba ito sa boss natin, kay 71?
Aquino: Sila na daw bahala sa kanya.
5. Somebody was to notify Lacson, after the fact. Lacson did not know about the “Special Ops” (first paragraph, page 4 handwritten affidavit);
6. Neither did Mancao know, until after the fact, as revealed by the following exchange:
Mancao: Noy, Ano bang Special Operations na ito?
Aquino: Kay kuwan yan, Mr. Dacer (first paragraph, page 4 handwritten affidavit).
7. Since there was no way to link Lacson based on the first affidavit of Dumlao, then it yields the conclusion that the statements of Dumlao in the “recantation affidavit” are true, that:
a. Dumlao was pressured to execute an addendum (paragraph 15, affidavit, May 20, 2003) linking Lacson, Mancao and Aquino to illegal activities (paragraph 3), which illegal activities were to include drug-trafficking, kidnapping, robbery/hold-up (paragraph 5);
b. Dumlao was moved to say: “P/DIR GUALBERTO was the dumbest police officer I have ever encountered. He wanted me to own up every killing that has been publicized and to point at SEN LACSON as the mastermind. He threatened to link me to all these cases if I do not cooperate.
c. Dumlao resisted the pressure;
d. The carrot and stick approach was applied on Dumlao - he was offered rewards, he was also threatened [drinking session with Berroy and Gen Alqueza (paragraph 13), an offer of a higher position (paragraph 18), threats from the dumbest police officer (Gualberto) and from Victor Corpus, facing a panel of bigwigs, comprised of Ronaldo Puno, Reynaldo Wycoco, Hernando Perez, Kermogenes Ebdane, Victor Corpus, Roberto Lastimoso, and Atty. Davila;
Clearly, therefore, the “recantation affidavit” was issued, not to controvert the first affidavit, but to put on record the pressures exerted on Dumlao, and to explain why “I flee my own country” (first paragraph, page 2, handwritten affidavit submitted to NJ Federal District Court).
The third affidavit neither affirms nor denies the statements of the first affidavit. It merely states that Dumlao’s best recollection of the events are contained in his first affidavit of June 12, 2001. If at all, it is a mere implied affirmation of the first affidavit.
Mancao, in his extradition case, initially intended to fight extradition, and filed a motion for habeas corpus ad testificandum, to compel the State of New York to produce the person of Dumlao in Florida, to testify to the fact that Mancao had no knowledge about the “Special Ops” regarding Dacer. The motion of Mancao, filed on January 9, 2009, cited the first affidavit of Dumlao. It was granted on the same day.
The hearing on the request for extradition was to be held on March 3, 209. Suddenly, Mancao seemed to have had a change of heart, and on February 23, 2009, filed a motion to release witness Dumlao from the previously issued writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. On March 3, 2009, Mancao executed an affidavit of consent to extradition, which was signed by his Public Defender, to show that Mancao was assisted by counsel. The affidavit of consent was sworn to, before the Magistrate Judge herself.
Now comes an affidavit, which on its face, says that Mancao signed on February 13, 2009, and sworn to, before the Honorary Consul in Florida, Angelo S. Macatangay, M.D. The jurat states that Mancao “personally appeared” before Macatangay. The office of the Honorary Consul is at 1900 W Commercial Blvd. Suite 29 Fort Lauderdale, 33309.
Did Mancao appear there to swear to the affidavit? How? Mancao has been detained since November 20, 2008. He is not out on bail, because the US Attorney argued that he would be a flight risk.
The affidavit also states that Mancao was assisted by his Public Defender, Lopez. But there is no signature of Lopez on the affidavit, as appears on the affidavit sworn to before the Magistrate Judge.
Did Macatangay visit Mancao in prison on February 14, 2009, a Saturday? Did Lopez visit with Macatangay? That should be easy to verify by referring to the visitor’s logbook in the prison where Mancao is detained. On its face, it looks like Dr. Macatangay doctored the affidavit.
The foregoing shows that the Mancao affidavit is a dud. The Dumlao affidavits, read together, provide the smoking gun – smoking gun about the efforts to railroad a case.
Oh and by the way, there is the alternative view by writer Herman Laurel Tiu – that the remains recovered were not those of Dacer. True, dental tests were done, but there is an even better test, to determine the truth. DNA can be extracted from teeth. In fact, a tooth was used to derive the DNA of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany in connection with a paternity case (http://www.springerlink.com/content/7w7ewlajdjqdawmg/).
So the DNA of those teeth can be matched with the DNA of Karina Dacer.
