Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp called the dismissal of her first perjury complaint against Ramil Madriaga a “political decision,” saying the Taguig prosecutor could not have reached such a ruling had the evidence been properly weighed.

Lawyer Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr., Duterte’s legal counsel and spokesperson, was reacting to the 2 September resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Taguig, which dismissed the complaint for lack of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.

“A prosecutor who truly weighed the evidence would not have reached this result,” Panelo said in a statement.

He said the resolution itself acknowledged that Duterte’s evidence raised serious doubts about Madriaga’s credibility and allegations, but failed to draw what he described as the logical conclusion that Madriaga deliberately and maliciously lied under oath.

He said the first complaint was supported by Duterte’s sworn testimony, seven corroborating witnesses, official documents, government certifications and contemporaneous records.

The Duterte camp has also filed a second perjury complaint against Madriaga, which Panelo said consists of about 750 pages and includes five additional corroborating testimonies and further official records and documents.

“These left no room for a good-faith finding that the complaint merely revealed ‘competing factual narratives,’ as the Resolution would have us believe,” Panelo said.

Panelo claimed the evidence in both complaints showed that Madriaga knowingly and recklessly made false statements under oath.

Panelo then questioned the political environment in which the complaint was prosecuted, pointing out that the Taguig prosecutor’s office is under the Department of Justice, headed by Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, a member of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s Cabinet.

He alleged that the dismissal could have political implications because a finding that Madriaga committed perjury could undermine allegations against Duterte that have been cited in the impeachment controversy.

“If a complaint of that strength can be discarded, then the message is simple: a man may brazenly lie under oath against the Vice President, and this administration will protect the lie if it is politically useful,” Panelo said.

Panelo said Duterte would challenge the dismissal through all available legal remedies and would continue pursuing the second perjury complaint against Madriaga.

“The Vice President will not be deterred. She will exhaust all available legal remedies against the dismissal, and will pursue the pending second perjury complaint against Madriaga, whatever the odds,” Panelo said.

Madriaga’s camp, however, welcomed the dismissal, saying the ruling showed that criminal allegations must ultimately be decided on evidence and law rather than the stature or influence of the parties involved.

His lawyer, Atty. Mark Anthony E. Te, said the resolution was a reminder that the strength of a criminal case was not determined by the volume of documents filed or the publicity surrounding it.

“This Resolution is a clear reminder that the strength of a case is not measured by the volume of papers filed, the amount of media attention generated, or the stature and position of the person making the accusation,” Te said.