PAGE 3
(29 January-1 February, 1998)
Or go to page 1 2 4
My daugter's hymen was found to be destroyed when she came out of the Preda facility. Why? Perhaps his need to fabricate evidence to make a good case is the reason for this sad state of change in my daughter’s physical condition. IT DOESN’T MATTER – IT IS STILL RAPE!!!
My daughter claims that the rape incident happened on the first night. I believe her, as do other people who are willing to testify in court against Shay Cullen. Why also is he and his staff so manipulative of the dates involved, and they deny that my daughter was ever taken to the hospital on 29 January 1998 as is their duty by law and expressly stated by the on-scene social worker from the DSWD? Further, why does he make the claim that a hospital is so poorly equipped that a doctor and attending nurse cannot recognize a hymen? I urge you to come to this country to investigate Preda Foundation, Inc. without their knowledge, OR EVEN MINE. I only want that the truth be brought to light, and this evil organization shown for what it is.
Interesting note is that although my daughter was taken to the NBI, NO STATEMENT WAS TAKEN CONCERNING ANY SEXUAL ABUSE. Why? On the surface of the information to this point, charges should have been filed against the son of the maid, and a more thorough investigation implemented if the charges were to stand up in a court of law. Did my daughter state what happened to her was only the result of teasing about the bicycle, and had nothing to do with sexual abuse? Clearly stated in the social worker’s affidavit on page 3 (excerpt reproduced below) is the plan of keeping my child for two or three days, as they knew that on the surface there was no real case here.
Clearly, if they had any reason to file charges, the law requires the filing immediately. By the time I had a petition for habeas corpus on 24 February, charges should have already been filed, but were not. Considering that I found out that the implementing rules and regulations of the Republic Act 7610 and 7658 (Special Protection for Filipino Children) state that the DSWD has by law 48 hours to investigate and implement protective custody of children (page 27 and in Sec 17 is the rule of law that if abuse is determined to have been committed, the information will be immediately forwarded to the prosecutor.
Because no cases had yet been filed, my name and reputation (and that of my children) were being besmirched worldwide by Preda in violation of the law, I filed a case of kidnapping against the people involved. Result: Case dismissed. Children have no protection for unwarranted seizure by the government and people like Shay Cullen and Preda. More, Shay Cullen is requesting even more autonomy for these acts from the Human Rights Commission in Geneva! If the law is followed, evidence is not tampered with, and the guilty are proven without resorting to manipulations and outright lies, yes, the protectors of the abused should be afforded protection. But on the other hand, when a child is raped to prove a case, endangered and threatened by these selfsame “protectors,” they need and deserve what punishment the courts should adjudicate. THEY SHOULD HAVE NO PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION.
30 January 1998
I and my maid went to Preda for our first meeting with Shay Cullen. I asked if she could attend her planned birthday party on the 31st of January, but he denied that basic pleasure for a child. Why? I would not have objected at all for a social worker to attend for her protection. It was a party. Bring on everybody, why not? I was now quite concerned. I was refused to be allowed to see my daughter, yet I was not accused of any wrongdoing. WHY were my rights as a parent violated? I was given an interview, in which I tried to be as candid as possible. Had I known the twisting of words that was done later by him, I would have been much more careful with my statements. I was presented a document in Tagalog (one of the local languages) to sign, and the Preda staff filled in the document for me (note the date of signature is also in Tagalog), signed it, then had me sign it (please see below). I did not read it, as I did not understand Tagalog at that time, and I felt that my daughter was being given treatment, as is what I was told, and I did not receive a copy (my copy was given as evidence by Shay Cullen in the case for habeas corpus). I had no idea that I was giving my daughter over to a Catholic institution for a year. Had I have known that, I would not have signed the document, as I am not Catholic and the children were not raised as Catholics.
Considering the date on the above 'Kasunduan' and the previously noted doctored Preda logs dat, why were sworn statements made that my daughter was not in preda until the 31st of January?
There were two differing reports from the DSWD, first dated 4 March, 1998, the second dated March 7, 1998. The first was a two-page report and the second report was a ten-page report. The person who signed the first report recommended approval of the second report. In those mere three days my daughter becomes a Roman Catholic and now knows where she was born, according to the second report's general information data, which is more or less the same as the first report. Note how the report states my daughter's birth is legitimate, but they continued to call my daughter 'adopted'. Why was this?
Upon my leaving the premises, Shay Cullen stated that I would be charged. I asked for what offense. He said it wasn’t important, but I would be charged. I demanded to know for what, and he stated for “obstruction of justice.” His last statement to me was an arrogant “Don’t bother going to the authorities about me, they can’t help you.” I wondered about the necessity of that statement to me, but let it pass: I was more concerned for my daughter’s welfare. Incidentally, I offer to you that I am not the only one who has been given that statement: Several other people have had similar statements made to them.
31 January 1998
The boy’s mother interviewed at Preda. She also is given a document to fill out and sign. She claims that she was not allowed to read it. It seems it was also a permission for custody to Preda. Nice. More than likely, it was the same general 'Kasunduan' that gave custody of the boy to Preda for one year. However, that said, he was not kept there, but allowed to return with his mother to his home in Barretto. This was more or less verified in several sworn statements with the words "When he returned..." and also my daughter's statements to me as well as others that she was totally sure that only female children were at Preda at that time, and not all that many.
The numbers and sex of chidren will become a point of discussion later.
1 February 1998
See Gloria for the first time, but no privacy given. The staff stay close by, and the meeting is limited to about five minutes. My daughter wants to come home, and if she can have her party when she gets to come home, and I am assured by DSWD that my daughter can be released “any day now.”
Now, due to the difficulty in visiting my daughter, I did complain about that and continued to complain about that, but that was a side issue - Why was she not being released? As far as I was concerned, to not allow my daughter to be able to see her family must have placed a major burden on her young mind. Remember, at this date and time, there were no accusations against her brother nor I, so I had no reason to believe that there would be accusations in our direction at a later date, so I could not understand the delay to release my daughter back to her family, as proof had already been obtained that the maid's son was no longer residing nor had access to my daughter in her home in San Antonio, and remember that this was the excuse given to take my daughter into custody in the first place. Reproduced below is an excerpt from an internal DSWD report of which I was provided a copy: Does this show that the DSWD was not interested in getting my daughter released and just sat on the case until I managed to get my daughter out of Preda by means of a court proceeding?
The statement that I got “an easier visitations,” is a lie, as I did not see my daughter again until 26 February 1998. I got to see my daughter on 1, 7, and 12 Feb. THAT IS ALL, and my requests to have my daughter returned to me were ignored, including the American Embassy's request for an expeditious resolution of the case!
(NEXT PAGE)
