Murder, Corruption, and Impunity: The Chilling Accusations Against Garma and Leonardo

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — September 28, 2024

THE murder of retired police general Wesley Barayuga is the tip of the iceberg in a much deeper story—one that intertwines the lives of three powerful figures from the Duterte administration’s war on drugs. Royina Garma, Edilberto Leonardo, and Barayuga are linked not only by their past roles in law enforcement, but by the blood-stained politics of the Philippines, where power plays a dangerous game, and corruption lurks just beneath the surface.

The Garma Tapestry: Political and Legal Entanglements

Royina Garma, the former Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) general manager and a long-serving police officer, finds herself in the crosshairs of a storm she cannot easily escape. Her ties to President Rodrigo Duterte, who appointed her to the PCSO in 2019, are well-known. Before that, Garma had led police operations in Davao, Duterte’s hometown, where she earned a reputation as a no-nonsense enforcer in the ongoing drug war. Allegations of her involvement in illegal gambling in Cebu further complicate her public image, as accusations from former Cebu City Mayor Tommy Osmeña point to Garma receiving millions from illegal gambling operations.

Yet, it is not Garma’s alleged financial dealings alone that draw scrutiny. As former President Duterte’s administration became synonymous with a brutal crackdown on illegal drugs—marked by thousands of deaths in so-called legitimate police operations—Garma’s name repeatedly surfaced in connection with extrajudicial killings. In particular, the unsolved murders of three Chinese nationals in a Davao prison raise disturbing questions about her role and whether she acted with impunity under the Duterte regime’s protective shadow.

The Nexus Between Garma, Leonardo, and Duterte’s Drug War

Edilberto Leonardo, a national police commissioner with similar connections to Duterte, shares the spotlight with Garma in these dark accusations. According to police officer Santie Mendoza, both Garma and Leonardo orchestrated Barayuga’s assassination under the guise of a “special project,” allegedly to eliminate a high-value target involved in drug operations. This “project” fits seamlessly into the broader context of Duterte’s war on drugs, where extrajudicial killings became a hallmark strategy. The testimony suggests that Garma and Leonardo operated within a culture that normalized such killings, with ties to political power emboldening their actions.

As Mendoza recounts, Leonardo assured him that Barayuga was involved in drug activities, even though Mendoza received no proof. Instead, the orders were presented as unchallengeable, with Garma’s knowledge and Leonardo’s insistence discouraging Mendoza from seeking verification. Here, the methodology mirrors Duterte’s anti-drug campaign: individuals were branded as criminals, often without due process, and executed. Mendoza’s account is chilling, describing a hierarchy that used threats, manipulation, and financial rewards to push subordinates into deadly missions.

The Testimony of Santie Mendoza: A Crucial Puzzle Piece

Santie Mendoza’s testimony serves as a critical piece of evidence, but it is not without complexities. On the surface, it paints a damning picture: a police officer coerced into facilitating an assassination out of fear for his life and career. Mendoza implicates both Garma and Leonardo as masterminds of the operation, detailing how a photograph of Barayuga provided by Garma ultimately sealed the victim’s fate.

However, Mendoza’s confession raises several questions. Why did he wait until now to come forward? What is the extent of his own culpability, and could his testimony be part of a plea deal or attempt at reducing his own punishment? While Mendoza’s account aligns with a broader pattern of extrajudicial killings, the absence of tangible proof beyond his statements weakens the case, raising concerns about the reliability of his testimony.

The Case Against Garma and Leonardo

The evidence presented by Mendoza, though powerful, must be substantiated to build a robust case against Garma and Leonardo. Under Philippine law, the assassination of a government official could fall under murder, a serious offense under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). Mendoza’s testimony suggests a premeditated and organized killing, satisfying the legal requirements for murder.

Furthermore, Garma and Leonardo’s involvement could violate Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as it relates to the misuse of public office for private gain—in this case, orchestrating a killing to protect or advance their own interests in the drug war. The Philippine ethical standards for public officials (RA 6713) also mandate accountability, transparency, and integrity, principles that Mendoza’s account directly contradicts.

The Philippine Supreme Court has previously condemned extrajudicial killings in rulings such as People v. Amante, where the Court stressed that public officials cannot act above the law. This precedent would weigh heavily against Garma and Leonardo, should Mendoza’s claims be proven true.

Challenging the Accusations: Counter-Arguments in Favor of Garma and Leonardo

While Mendoza’s testimony is damning, Garma and Leonardo’s defense hinges on the argument of insufficient evidence. No concrete proof—beyond Mendoza’s testimony—links them directly to the murder. The photograph of Barayuga taken by Garma, while suspicious, is circumstantial and can be easily explained away as part of her official duties at PCSO. Additionally, Garma’s denial of any involvement and Leonardo’s contempt citation suggest they are being targeted as scapegoats, especially in a politically charged investigation.

Moreover, the legal principle of presumption of innocence guarantees that Garma and Leonardo must be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of physical evidence (such as written orders or documented communications) weakens the prosecution’s case, allowing the defense to cast doubt on Mendoza’s credibility and motives.

Assessing the Strength of the Case

At this stage, the case against Garma and Leonardo remains heavily dependent on Mendoza’s testimony. While his detailed account adds weight to the allegations, its lack of corroborating evidence leaves room for doubt. The political climate and past events related to the Duterte administration’s drug war lend credence to the possibility of their involvement, but proving it beyond reasonable doubt is a significant challenge.

Recommendations for Garma, Leonardo, and the Quadcom

For Garma and Leonardo, their best course of action is to provide transparent and verifiable evidence to refute Mendoza’s claims. Silence or evasion will only deepen suspicion. They must cooperate fully with the investigation, presenting their own evidence of innocence, if it exists.

For the Quadcom, the key lies in digging deeper. Mendoza’s testimony opens a door, but the committee must gather more evidence—digital records, communications, financial trails—before drawing conclusions. To ensure justice, the investigation should not be swayed by political pressures but remain steadfast in its commitment to the truth, wherever it leads.

As the smoke clears from this latest scandal, the Philippines remains ensnared in a web of power plays, corruption, and silence. Breaking this cycle demands more than just political reform—it requires a relentless pursuit of truth, a willingness to confront the darkness, and a collective commitment to justice that transcends party lines. Without these, the cycle of impunity will persist, leaving the nation to bear the consequences of its inaction.