CA reverses conviction of two “drug suspects”

CEBU, Philippines - The appellate court reversed the ruling of the trial court convicting two men for allegedly selling illegal drugs due to the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Associate Justice Pamela Ann Maxino acquitted Hadji Abubakar Mohammad and Helbert Pancho for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

“Sifting through the records of the case at bench, we find that the above cited procedure has not been observed by the law enforcement officers. In sum, we find that the guilt of both accused-appellants has not been proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt,” the decision read.

With that, Maxino ordered the release of accused-appellants from prison.  Mohammad and Pancho appealed the case after they were convicted by the trial court, sentenced to jail and fined half a million.

The accused-appellants said the trial court erred in convicting them because the prosecution failed to prove their guilt and failed to follow the procedure laid down by the law from the seizure, custody, handling and disposition of illegal drugs.

The two said there was no proof that the seized evidence was the same presented in court after the police failed to mark the evidence after seizure.

Likewise, they said the prosecution failed to state who had custody of the evidence before it was turned over to the crime laboratory.

The two were arrested on Apr. 11, 2005 during a buy-bust operation.

The police said before the operation their confidential agent informed them that Pancho was looking for a buyer for P40,000 worth of shabu.

For the defense, Pancho said while he was outside a store, three men suddenly approached him and asked what he did inside the store.  After answering all their questions he said they searched him and brought him to the police station.

Mohammad said he was in the store with his wife to buy some groceries. They met their neighbor Pancho inside an eatery.

Later, he said while his wife ordered some barbeque, a group of men approached him and asked if he was a Muslim.  He answered yes and they brought him to the police station.

After the parties rested their case, the trial court ruled to convict them. However, upon appeal, the appellate court reversed the ruling citing the prosecution failed to observe the rule of law. 

“No testimony or evidence was ever offered by the prosecution on who received the drug when it was delivered to the crime laboratory, who took custody of it prior to, during and after testing, and who was the person in charge of its safekeeping before it was presented before the court,” the decision read.

She said there were also inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution as to who marked the evidences.

Moreover, she mentioned in the decision the negligence of the authorities to observe the simple and elementary rule of law in dealing with drug cases.

“The authorities are called upon not only to exert greater effort in combating the drug menace but to take to heart most ardently the observance of the safeguards provided for by law and to shy away from the avarice of complacency and ineptitude,” the decision further read.  (FREEMAN)