MANILA, Philippines – A drug pusher was recently acquitted by the Court of Appeals (CA) after prosecutors have failed to present the police asset in court to refute his defense on allegations that the accused was set up due to vendetta.
In a 13-page decision penned by Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang, CA Special 9th Division acquitted accused Marlon Cruzata.
Concurring with the decision were Associate Justices Stephen Cruz and Manuel Barrios.
In acquitting the accused, the CA said that Cruzata was set up and that no buy-bust operation really took place.
The CA reversed the Nov. 18, 2008 decision of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 82, finding Cruzata guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The RTC sentenced Cruzata to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of P500,000.
Court records showed that Cruzata was arrested during a buy-bust operation on Sept. 14, 2003 for allegedly selling 0.03 grams of shabu on Kapiligan Street, Barangay Doña Imelda, Quezon City.
The CA had given weight to the defense of Cruzata’s claims that the buy-bust team failed strictly to follow the required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs as meritorious.
“There was no physical inventory or photograph of the seized items taken in the presence of the accused or his counsel, a representative of the media and the Department of Justice and an elective official,” the CA said.
The CA found reasonable doubt that what happened in this case was a set up and that the accused-appellant was arrested without a lawful case.
The CA said the accused testified that Joseph, a police asset, barged inside their house and told him that he would have him arrested as his wife and Joseph’s wife had a quarrel.
“After that several policemen arrived and brought the accused-appellant to the police station. It is clear that the police asset in this case was already identified as Joseph,” said the CA.
The CA further said since the police asset has already been identified, the cloak of confidentiality attached to his being an informant was s already removed.
The CA said informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police.