This, after Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 58 Judge Irineo Pangilinan accepted the petition of the Department of Justice to make SPO4 Roy Villegas a state witness, with a note that the cop did not directly participate in the killing of the South Korean national.
Jee and his househelp Marisa Morquicho were abducted from the Korean’s house at Friendship Plaza here in October 2016 by armed men pretending to carry out an illegal drugs operation.
The housemaid was released but Jee was strangled in Camp Crame and his remains cremated in a funeral parlor in Caloocan City.
The DOJ later implicated Villegas in a kidnapping and homicide case, along with former anti-narcotics head Supt. Rafael Dumlao III, SPO3 Ricky Sta. Isabel, National Bureau of Investigation personnel Jerry Omlang, and funeral home owner Gerardo Santiago.
Villegas was also charged with abduction of Jee’s househelp and carnapping Jee’s SUV.
It was Villegas who, in a sworn statement, implicated Dumlao as mastermind in the kidnapping and killing of Jee, together with Sta. Isabel, an alias Jerry, an alias Pulis and five other men.
Pangilinan said Villegas satisfi ed all the requirements to become state witness, as he was the least guilty of those accused.
He noted that Villegas’ testimony was “absolutely necessary” to prove the guilt of the other respondents.
“In the face of the prose- cution’s evidence in support of its motion to discharge accused Villegas, it appears that while accused Villegas had active participation in the alleged carnapping, abduction of victims Jee Ick Joo and Marisa Morquicho as most of his co-accused had been, accused Villegas had no direct participation in the actual killing of victim Jee Ick Joo,” Pangilinan said in his order approving Villegas as state witness.
“In addition, there are also several unidentifi ed culprits, at large, whose degree and par- ticipation are yet to be ascer- tained to complete the missing puzzle of the cases,” he also said.
Pangilinan noted that “Villegas has the capacity to testify unto certain facts necessary for the conviction of the ac-cused, being physically present at the crime scene, and having directly participated thereon.”
The judge also noted that the testimony of the housemaid was weak and that the testimony of Villegas could qualify as direct evidence against the respondents.
