Peter Joemel Advincula claims he is the ‘Bikoy’ in the video “Totoong Narcolist” which implicated President Rodrigo Duterte and his family as well as former Special Assistant to the President Christopher “Bong” Go in the illegal drugs syndicate in the country.
As much as we wish to believe him, it is just foolish to jump into the web of his stories.
Information about Advincula’s “criminal background” casts doubt on his credibility. Clearly, he has lied big time in the past which caused for him to be incarcerated for illegal recruitment and large scale estafa. He was reportedly once touted as Bicol’s most wanted criminal. Estafa and illegal recruitment are among the crimes which are categorized as those which involve moral turpitude. Meaning, it speaks of the very integrity and credibility of the person involved. In this case, Advincula or the self-declared ‘Bikoy.’
How he was able to stage a one-man press conference with all the major media networks and organizations around speaks of the handlers this man have. For he could not pulled it off by himself alone.
As Advincula read through his prepared statement, it is questionable why has he not instead done the legal thing–execute his statement as a duly sworn affidavit made under oath–so that it becomes a statement that can hold water in the future. However, he went through his narrative in front of cameras in a spectacle staged specifically for some impact. There had to be authors and organizers behind the showpiece.
But Advincula’s narrative clearly lacks the credibility of the messenger. With his shadowy past, Advincula could not be the character to speak with credibility and integrity. As he spoke, it seemed like everyone was watching Pinocchio talk as his nose grows longer and longer.
This leads us to the discussion of character evidence in legal terms. The case of People of the Philippines vs. Noel Lee (G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002), penned by former Chief Justice Reynato Puno elucidates the essence of character evidence, viz:
“Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and morals, distinguishing him from others. It is the opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the people who are acquainted with him; his reputation. Good moral character includes all the elements essential to make up such a character; among these are common honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse; a character that measures up as good among people of the community in which the person lives, or that is up to the standard of the average citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.
However, the same case also said that “the rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the issues in the case were allowed to be influenced by evidence of the character or reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity contest rather than a factual inquiry into the merits of the case. After all, the business of the court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very bad man may have a righteous cause. There are exceptions to this rule however and Section 51, Rule 130 gives the exceptions in both criminal and civil cases.”
Section 51, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, Rules of Court says: “SEC 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:(a)
In Criminal Cases:
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. xxx”
In the case of ‘Bikoy’, his character is relevant considering the same may suggest the probability or improbability of his statements. Hence, his penchant for fabricating lies against others given his track record of criminal offenses in the past (which involve crimes of moral turpitude) negates his claims and allegations.
Once a liar, always a liar.
