THE Office of the City Prosecutor has dismissed the complaint for murder filed by the Criminal Investigation and Detection Team (CIDT)- Bohol against Aurelia Taray and co-respondents Arnaldo Sarto alias “Bogs” and Renato Sabalande alias “Rene” for the killing of Victorio “Victor” Taray, co-owner of Via Bohol Tourist Inn, Graham Avenue , this city. Aurelia Taray was earlier tagged as the mastermind of the killing of her husband, Victorino, who was killed on March 12, at 6:30 in the morning outside the gate of the Monastery of the Holy Spirit, this city. In a nine--page resolution dated November 18, and approved by City Prosecutor Adriano Montes, City Prosecutor II Alberto Santos Rara dismissed the case against Taray after it was found in an in-depth examination that the pieces of evidence against her were mere “hearsay” and “inadmissible”' not having been of the personal knowledge of the witnesses of the complainant.

“While it may appear that respondent Taray may have the motive to do harm or kill her husband by reason of their open conflict with each other, motive alone cannot be basis of prosecution, “ Rara averred. The resolution found no sufficient, competent and valid proof that Taray participated in the commission of the offense. The case against Sarto, the alleged triggerman, was likewise dismissed on grounds of serious doubts of his identity as the alleged gunman of the crime. .During the preliminary investigation, when the alleged eyewitness of the crime was asked to point to the alleged gunman, he pointed to a wrong person, not Sarto. While Sarto was identified by another witness, the latter's testimony was found short of the legal yardstick of “sufficient circumstantial evidence”, as the alleged witness only saw Sarto running and allegedly had a conversation with him while the said witness was allegedly defecating.

As to the case of Sabalande, the alleged recruiter of the gunweilder, the prosecutor observed that the sworn statements of two witnesses against him were practically the same, except for their names. Basing on the respective demeanor and manner by which these two witnesses and two others testified, the prosecutor found their testimonies “stereotyped”, “of doubtful credibility”, and “of doubtful veracity.” The prosecutor ruled that since the witnesses against Sabalande were not intimately close or familiar to him, there was no credence to their claim that he would recruit or offer them a job to do a killing. This claim, according to the prosecutor, was “contrary to human conduct and experience.”

“The undersigned finds these testimonies of said witness of doubtful veracity. It is of human experience that if someone would offer or recruit anybody to commit murder or to do a killing, it is made to somebody who is intimately familiar with the offeror as there is always the possibility the the offeree, if not intimately familiar, would squeal, thereby endangering the offeror to prosecution or reprisal,” Rara added. Taray was represented by lawyer Roland Inting, while the counsel for Sabalande and Sarto were lawyers Oriculo Granada and Gina Clarus-Sumbe, respectively. Lawyers Teodoro Lagang and Menedio Thaddeus Bernido appeared for complainant (CIDT' witness Relvic Niño Taray, son of the Taray spouses. The position paper of complainant CIDT-Bohol was notarized by Bernido. In an interview, lawyer Inting was quoted as saying, “The case built by the complainant was pure and simple hogwash against my client at the least. The witnesses appeared coached and they testified with their tongue in check – pure and simple perjury.”