March 25, 2011 would be remembered as a busy day in the life of the Special Court for Drug Cases as it rendered judgments in 12 cases submitted for resolution. Four of the cases were promulgated in two joint judgments.{{more}}
On that day, the Court sentenced two drug pushers, Adam Sun and Jojo Ejan, to life terms. They were also fined P500,000 each. The two convicts were caught in separate buy-bust operations some three years ago in barangay Looc and barangay 2, respectively.
In these cases, the Court ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the essential elements of the offense charged, especially presenting evidence that the transaction actually took place, along with the presentation in court of the illegal substance which constituted the corpus delicti. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witness who were eyewitnesses to the transaction to be clear, straightforward and worthy of credence.
Both accused Sun and Ejan tried to wiggle themselves out of their respective cases by claiming that the informant-poseur buyer was not presented in Court. The court ruled that the non-presentation of the informant-poseur buyer cannot prejudice the prosecution’s theory of the case. As a rule, it is rare for the prosecutor to present the informant because of the need to hide the latter’s identity and preserve his invaluable service to the police.
In another case, the Court sentenced four other persons to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) for drug possession.
Sentenced were Jesus Gadiana, Winben Salmorin Jasper Real and Leo Escartin Janio.
They were all found guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. All four accused just simply denied the charges against them.
The Court said denial is an inherently weak defense and in the light the evidence presented by the prosecution, such denial would certainly fail.
Comparing the defense versions with that of the prosecution as to what really happened on the dates referred to, the Court found the account of the prosecution witnesses more credible, the Court said.
Aside from the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties, the Court noted that the prosecution witnesses gave a consistent and straightforward narration of what transpired on the different days in question.
In the case of the fourth suspect, Janio, he jumped bail in the course of the trial and was no longer able to present evidence in his behalf. The Court noted that flight is an indication of guilt.
In four other cases promulgated on the same day, five (5) persons escaped imprisonment as the Court acquitted them of the charges filed against them based on reasonable doubt.
Acquitted in various cases were Mediolyn Amigo, Felice Jane Quiaoit. Allan Diputado, Marilou Tondo and Romeo Merecido.
In all these cases, the Court found wanting in evidence on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, which evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused.
The Court noted that serious flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly bought or seized from these accused weakened the prosecution’s cause as it cast doubts on the identity of the corpus delicti but also tend to discredit, if not totally negate, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official police operations.
While the common defense raised by the different accused in their different cases was denial, which is inherently weak, the Court said the conviction of the different accused must rest not on the weakness of their respective defenses but on the strength of the prosecution.