JDV kin acquitted in drug case

MANILA, Philippines - A Parañaque court acquitted a distant relative of former Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. of drug charges after the police failed to properly document the evidence against him.

Regional Trial Court Branch 259 Judge Danilo Suarez said the prosecution “failed to present” enough proof to “overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.”

Police said De Venecia was arrested on Oct. 6, 2007 for allegedly carrying .12 grams of shabu. He denied the accusation.

Police Officer 2 Alfonso del Rosario said he and PO2 Joel Cuenca were having breakfast when they saw De Venecia, who was five meters away, “flicking a plastic sachet” of shabu in Barangay San Dionisio. He said he arrested De Venecia and brought him to the police station.

De Venecia said he could not flick the sachet because he has cerebral palsy, which affected his right hand and foot. He said he was in a car with friends on Oct. 5, 2007 when four policemen “forcibly opened the doors and entered the car.”

De Venecia alleged that the policemen asked him to empty his pockets and brought him and a friend to the police station after they found nothing on him.

Del Rosario said he could no longer recall where Cuenca marked the evidence. He also admitted that he failed to take a photograph of the drug and that De Venecia was not assisted by a lawyer when he signed the inventory because of a “news blackout.”

In a 10-page decision, Suarez said that to strengthen a case against drug suspects, police officers must comply with the rules on preserving evidence, as stated under Republic Act 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act.

He said the alleged news blackout should not be used by the prosecution to justify their noncompliance. Under the law, the marking of evidence should be witnessed by a representative from the justice department and the media.

Suarez said these are necessary steps to prove that what was seized by the police officers is the same item presented in court.

“The Supreme Court in numerous cases have acquitted the accused where the prosecution did not properly inventory and photograph the confiscated evidence,” he said.