CA frees 7 convicted Chinese drug dealers on technicality

The Court of Appeals (CA) overturned the conviction of seven Chinese who were earlier sentenced to 40 years in prison for alleged drug trafficking by a Pasig City court in 2003.

In a 51-page decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr., the appellate court directed the Bureau of Corrections to immediately release detainees Cai Xihe alias Chua Sak Hap; Tian Sang; Cai Dushi alias Chua Tok Sit; Yan Qizhong alias Sing Hong; Lao Chi Diak alias Chi Jak; King Cheng; and Lim Chamou alias Cha Bon unless they are lawfully held in custody for another cause.

“The director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to forthwith implement this decision and to inform this Court, within 10 days from receipt thereof, of the date appellants were actually released from confinement,” the CA said.

The CA said that members of the Philippine National Police’s Anti-Narcotics Group that raided the alleged shabu laboratory allegedly maintained by appellants on Jan. 28, 2002 “gravely mishandled” the drug bust operation, resulting in the violation of Article III Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful arrests and illegal searches and seizures.

“Because of the large haul of illegal drugs that the government officers claimed to have recovered, this Court agonized over the case before us and struggled to apply the law with even hand. In the final analysis, we in the administration of justice would have no right to expect ordinary people to be law abiding if we do not insist on the full protection of their rights,” the CA said.

According to the CA, law enforcers should act with “deliberate care and within the parameters set by the Constitution, in its efforts to fight the proliferation of illegal drugs in the country.”

According to the CA, based on the testimonies of the policemen who took part in the raid, the appellants were not allowed to actually witness the inventory of the alleged shabu laboratory since they were all herded into one of the rooms of the house.

The CA ruled that the mere presence of barangay officials during the police raid will not cure the irregularities, as stated in the Rules of Court, that in the absence of the lawful occupant of the premises, the search will be have to be made in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

“Thus, the search of the questioned premises should have been witnessed by the appellants. The police officers were without discretion to substitute their choice of witnesses for those prescribed by the law,” the CA said.

“Since the appellants did not witness the search of the premises, their eventual arrest provides no proof of the regularity and propriety of the search in question,” the CA added.

The seven convicted Chinese were sentenced to reclusion perpetua on March 20, 2003 by the Pasig City Regional Trial Court Branch 164 and ordered to pay a fine of P5 million each after finding them guilty of maintaining a shabu den at 93 Araullo Street, Barangay Additions Hills, San Juan.

The Chinese were arrested after a search warrant was issued by the Pasig court to the raiding team led by Inspector Orlando Carlos, chief of the investigation section of the Anti-Trafficking Division of the PNP Anti-Narcotics Group.

In their court testimonies, the Chinese declared that they were framed by the police. They insisted that they were innocent of the charges against them and that they came to the country to seek lucrative jobs.

The appellants claimed that they arrived in the country in 2001 after being recruited by a certain Mr. Tiu. The Pasig Court, however, noted that the Chinese failed to present their working visa to back up their claim that they were permitted to work in the country.

In their petition for review filed at the CA, the appellants argued that the lower court erred when it admitted as evidence the materials seized from the supposed shabu laboratory despite irregularities in the application of the search warrant.

The appellants added that the lower court erred when it brushed aside their defense and instead gave undue credence to testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite inconsistencies.