The Dangerous Game: Kerwin Espinosa’s Recantation and the Unraveling of a Political Vendetta

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — October 18, 2024

DID A former PNP Chief turn one of the most feared drug lords into a pawn to destroy a political rival? In a bombshell testimony, Kerwin Espinosa—once the country’s most notorious drug lord—claims that Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa pressured him into framing former Senator Leila de Lima. With Espinosa’s revelations now echoing in the halls of the Philippine Congress, new questions arise about the dark legacy of Duterte’s violent war on drugs.

Espinosa’s testimony is not just a tale of coerced confessions; it is a window into the murky world of Duterte’s drug war, where law enforcement and politics intertwined in ways that left bodies in their wake and destroyed reputations, particularly that of de Lima. This explosive allegation—if proven true—speaks to a systemic abuse of power and could unravel the legitimacy of high-profile convictions.

Kerwin Espinosa: From Drug Lord to Witness, A Troubled History

Kerwin Espinosa’s involvement with the law is a dark tale. The Espinosa family name became synonymous with the drug trade after his father’s alleged dealings came to light in 2016. Mayor Espinosa Sr. was arrested but pleaded for his life, fearing that he would be killed if transferred to a provincial jail. His worst fears came true when he was shot dead in his cell in what police claimed was a shootout. The Espinosa killing set the stage for a narrative of fear and coercion that has plagued the Philippines’ criminal justice system ever since.

According to Kerwin, the moment he stepped off the plane from Malaysia after his father’s death, he was greeted by General Dela Rosa himself. The encounter, Espinosa alleges, was not a welcome home, but a threat-laden ultimatum. Dela Rosa, he claims, told him to admit his involvement in the drug trade and to implicate de Lima and another figure, Peter Lim. If he refused, he was warned that he would meet the same fate as his father.

The Duterte-De Lima Feud: Personal and Political Battlelines

To fully grasp Espinosa’s claims, one must understand the broader context of the political feud between then-President Rodrigo Duterte and Senator Leila de Lima. Duterte’s hostility toward de Lima, a vocal critic of his drug war, was deeply personal and political. As the former chair of the Commission on Human Rights, de Lima had investigated Duterte’s alleged links to extrajudicial killings in Davao when he was mayor. When Duterte ascended to the presidency, he sought retribution.

De Lima became a lightning rod in Duterte’s drug war. Espinosa’s false testimony against her fit into a broader narrative pushed by the administration—that she was deeply involved in the drug trade. De Lima’s eventual imprisonment on drug charges was seen by many as politically motivated, designed to silence one of the president’s fiercest critics. Her acquittal in 2024 further vindicated her claims that she had been wrongfully imprisoned.

Twisted Justice: The Use of Coerced Testimonies for Political Gain

Espinosa’s assertion that Dela Rosa pressured him into implicating de Lima highlights a disturbing pattern in Duterte’s war on drugs: the rampant use of coerced testimonies to eliminate political opponents. The Philippines has a long history of using so-called “state witnesses” who, in exchange for leniency, provide testimonies against more prominent figures. However, Espinosa’s testimony adds weight to claims that such witnesses were not only incentivized but threatened into providing fabricated evidence.

Coerced confessions violate both Philippine legal standards and international human rights conventions. The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines explicitly forbids acts of intimidation and threats to obtain confessions (Article 286). Moreover, the Supreme Court has long established the precedent that confessions extracted under duress are inadmissible in court (People v. Obrero, G.R. No. 144174).

Dela Rosa’s Defense: Challenging Espinosa’s Claims and Defending the Drug War

Dela Rosa, a staunch Duterte ally and architect of the war on drugs, has built a career on the narrative that the drug war was a necessary and legitimate response to the country’s drug problem. His likely counter-arguments to Espinosa’s accusations will focus on discrediting the witness. Dela Rosa could point to Espinosa’s criminal history, portraying him as an unreliable source who is manipulating his testimony to gain leniency.

He might also argue that Espinosa’s recantation is part of a broader strategy by Duterte’s political opponents to undermine the war on drugs retroactively. Legally, Dela Rosa could rely on the principle that without corroborating evidence, Espinosa’s testimony holds little probative value. As per People v. Lagon, the court gives minimal weight to the testimony of recanting witnesses unless there is solid proof to corroborate their new statements.

The Legal Path Forward: A Battle for Credibility

As the legal battle unfolds, both sides face significant hurdles. For Espinosa, the challenge lies in providing sufficient evidence that his previous testimony was coerced. He must demonstrate not only that he was under threat but also that there is corroborating evidence to support his claims—such as testimony from other coerced witnesses or communications from law enforcement.

For Dela Rosa, the primary challenge is maintaining credibility. If it is proven that the police, under his command, engaged in coercive tactics, it could lead to charges of misconduct, or worse, involvement in extrajudicial killings. The Quadcom’s scrutiny of Duterte’s drug war will likely intensify, with the possibility of international human rights groups stepping in to investigate further.

Recommendations for Moving Forward

For Espinosa: He should seek legal protection and collaborate with other witnesses who may have faced similar coercion, potentially leading to a broader investigation into systemic abuses during Duterte’s drug war.

For Bato Dela Rosa: Dela Rosa must provide transparent and verifiable evidence to refute Espinosa’s claims. Silence or denial without proof will only serve to further tarnish his reputation and that of Duterte’s drug war.

For the Quadcom and the Philippine Government: It is imperative that the government conducts an impartial investigation into Espinosa’s allegations. This case could serve as a litmus test for the credibility of the country’s judicial system.

For the Public: Vigilance is crucial. The public must demand accountability from political leaders and law enforcement agencies, ensuring that justice prevails and that abuses of power are exposed and rectified.

In the end, the most haunting legacy of Duterte’s drug war isn’t perhaps the violence on the streets, but the quiet death of justice behind courtroom doors. Kerwin Espinosa’s testimony is a chilling reminder that when truth is silenced, the entire nation pays the price—and the true casualties of this war may never fully be counted.