The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of two individuals who have been convicted in 2014 for possession of over 119 kilos of the shabu in 2003.
In an en banc decision rendered on February 21 but uploaded on the SC’s website on June 30, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted Robert Uy, and James Go Ong alias Willie Gan.
“It is truly regrettable that the Court must acquit accused-appellant in the instant case and extend such acquittal to Willie Gan,” stated the SC decision penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo.
“The law enforcement agents and the prosecution must exercise more prudence and care in their compliance with the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002),” the high court said.
“Even more reprehensible is the error committed by the RTC in the penalty imposed upon Willie Gan and accused-appellant for violation of . . . of RA No. 9165,” the SC said, noting that Sec 11 Article II of RA 9165 provides that the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000 to P10 million is imposed where the shabu or other dangerous drugs possessed is 50 grams or more.
The SC noted that Gan did not make an appeal of his conviction because the lower penalty imposed was advantageous to him, and the prosecution did not even question the insufficient penalty imposed against Gan.
In reprimanding the police authorities, prosecutors and the RTC judge and CA magistrates who handled the case of Uy, the SC said: “The beseeches all actors (referring to public prosecutors, the defense and the trial court) in the administration of criminal justice in our jurisdiction to effectively carry out their respective duties and responsibilities, keeping in mind that any failure on their part will likely result in acquittal. Such is the burden imposed on these actors, ordained by the evidentiary value required in criminal cases: proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
“The Court emphasizes that the acquittal in the instant case is borne of the failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges against accused-appellant and, in turn, against Willie Gan,” the SC declared.
Court records showed that a regional trial court in 2014 found Uy guilty for the alleged distribution of over nine kilos of shabu. He and Gan were sentenced to up to 14 years in prison over the alleged possession of over 119 kilos of the same. Media reports at that time estimated the value of the seized illegal drugs to be P1 billion.
In its order dated January 2011, the Valenzuela City Regional Trial Court, Branch 171, however, dismissed the drug charges against Jackie Ong, Tan Ty Siao, and Go Siak Ping on the basis of a demurrer to evidence. It held that there is no proof that the three accused participated in the bribe made by Co Ching Ki to a police. The RTC also dismissed the case against Co Ching Ki who alleged offered to bribe the police authorities with 10 kilos of shabu for failure of the prosecution to link the confiscated illegal drugs to three accused.
The Court of Appeals in 2019 upheld the regional trial court’s decision which found Uy and Gan guilty.
“The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ordered to immediately release Robert Uy y Ting and Willie Gan from detention, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to inform the Court of the action hereon within five days from receipt of this Decision,” the SC held.
The case stemmed from the November 2003 arrest of six alleged members of a drug syndicate for the delivery of 9,384 kilograms of shabu and alleged possession of 119.080 kilograms of shabu and 111.200 kilograms of chloromethamphetamine hydrochloride.
In its 35-page decision, the SC overturned the Court of Appeals ruling, saying the prosecution failed to prove the element of possessions.
“The appeal is meritorious,” the SC said.
“After review of the records, accused-appellant must be acquitted of both charges on the basis of reasonable doubt. The seizure of a significant or large amount of dangerous drugs does not detract from the obligatory nature of proving the corpus delicti, operationalized through strict compliance with the requirement of Section 21 of RA No. 9165,” the SC ruled.
“On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds that there was non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 and such failure cannot be excused. Thus, the corpus delicti of the seized items during both operations was not proven,” the high court stressed.
While Willie Gan did not make an appeal of his conviction by trial court, the SC said its decision acquitting Uy of the drug charges, also applies to him.
“It failed to prove that accused-appellant had possession, either actual or constructive, of the items seized from the warehouse during the November 11, 2003 incident,” the high court said.
The SC added that there was no evidence that Uy had constructive possession over the warehouse and its contents.
“It must be emphasized that the lessee of the warehouse was Willie Gan,” the Court said.
“The purported knowledge ascribed to accused-appellant by the CA cannot, and does not, equate to constructive possession,” the SC said.
The SC also lamented that there was a lack of evidence that the arresting officers complied with the mandatory requirements of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
“In the instant case, despite large or substantial amounts of dangerous drugs being involved, the Court must acquit accused-appellant due to the failure of the law enforcement agents to comply with the mandatory requirements,” it said.
According to the Court, there are also material gaps in the links of the chain of custody for the items seized on November 10 and November 11, 2003.
The Court noted that another officer apart from the seizing officer marked the carton box and five plastic bags which contained the drugs. It said that there was also no inventory receipt provided.
“While photographs of the carton box and the five plastic bags of shabu were offered in evidence, it is unclear if these photograps were taken at the place of seizure or, if not applicable, at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/ team,” the high court said.
“All told, the police officers did not even attempt to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA No. 9165,” it added.
The SC also said that the investigating officer was also not identified for both operations.
“As such, there is no testimony or evidence available as to the turnover of the seized items by the apprehending officer to such investigating officer. This is another material gap in the chain of custody which throws into question the identity of the seized items from both operations,” it noted.
Besides, the high court said the third chain or the turnover of the illegal drugs to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination was also missing.
It said that there is also gap in the submission of the seized drugs to the court.
“Accordingly, due to the egregious deficiencies in the observance of the rule on the chain of custody of the items seized from both the November 10 and November 11 operations, the Court cannot conclude that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved,” it said.
“Again, the large amount of dangerous drugs involved in the instant case does not excuse the failure to prove the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized items,” it added.
The SC ruled that the case revealed the “law enforcement agents’ complete ignorance of the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165.”
“This ignorance extends to the prosecution because the records are woefully bereft of any attempt on its part to even invoke justifiable circumstances to excuse the failure of the law enforcement agents to even attempt to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The utter disregard for the law demonstrated by these actors is reprehensible,” the SC said.
“Even more reprehensible is the error committed by the RTC in the penalty imposed upon Willie Gan and accused-appellant,” the justices added, adding the accused were merely penalized with 12 years jail period instead of life imprisonment and fine ranging from P500,000.00 to Pl0,000,000.00,” the SC said.
“The acquittal in the instant case is ordained by the multiple errors, whether through negligence or misfeasance, committed by the prosecution, the defense, and the trial court,” the high court stressed.