The case is for the prosecution of Tino and Nano for violation of Section 4, Art. II of the Dangerous Drugs Act when they were caught in the act of selling or offering for sale dried marijuana fruiting tops, a prohibited drug.
In the Information filed before Judge Pasya (not his true name), the marijuana sold appeared to be only 42.410 grams. Noticeable on closer scrutiny of said Information are: the alteration of the word "kilos" to "grams", the erasure of the phrase "no bail recommended" appearing below the list of witnesses with the use of the so-called "sno-pake". Instead, in the space provided for " Bail Recommended" the amount of P 60,000 was entered. Also, the word "prohibited" was superimposed on an erased word and the word "dried" was inserted before the word marijuana. Noticeable also is the lack of any signature or countersignature on the said erasures and alterations. But the original signatures of the three Fiscals, including the reviewing fiscal were affixed on the information itself.
Enclosed in the referral letter sent by Narcom and attached to the records of the case were the Joint affidavit of the poseur buyer and arresting officers as well as the initial PNP laboratory report. The said referral letter and affidavit indicated that approximately 45 kilos of marijuana were confiscated from the accused, while the laboratory report stated a total of 42,410 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops, a far cry from the 42.410 grams stated in the information.
When Tino and Nano were arraigned, Judge Pasya relied on the information seeing nothing wrong with it inspite of the erasures. Especially because it has been subjected to review by the prosecutor’s office. At first Tino and Nano pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged in the information. The defense counsel then made a manifestation for a change of plea. After the defense and the prosecution approached the bench, Judge Pasya instructed the clerk to re-read the Information to the accused, who both changed their plea to that of "guilty". Considering that the offense charged in the In-formation involves only 42.410 grams, Judge Pasya asked the prosecutor to comment on the imposable penalty which is 6 months and 1 day. Since the prosecutor had no objection, the judge sentenced Nano and Tino to imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day.
That same afternoon, both Nano and Tino filed an application for probation. Since the offense to which they pleaded guilty was probationable, Judge Pasya issued an order giving due course to the application. So Nano and Tino were already released.
A month later the Narcom agents discovered the alteration in the Information. An investigation conducted by the NBI revealed that it was altered after it was signed and approved by the Chief Inquest Fiscal and it was this altered Information which was submitted for raffle and later transmitted to the sala of Judge Pasya.
In the administrative complaint filed against Judge Pasya by the Narcom, he was not implicated nor charged with complicity in the alteration. But he was reprimanded by the Supreme Court (SC) for negligence in the performance of his duties. According to the SC the significant tampering and alterations on an official document like a criminal Information should have instantly provoked the inquisitive mind of a responsible judge and elicited his suspicion, thus placing him on guard that there was something wrong in that information especially because the erasures and alterations were not even signed or countersigned. Judge Pasya could have easily discovered the anomaly had he devoted a little more time to dutifully examine the documents attached to the records of the case and familiarize himself with the circumstances surrounding the crime charged before rendering judgment thereon. Considering further that drug cases have reached alarming proportions and often drug syndicates or drug lords surreptitiously intervene in behalf of accused, extreme caution on the part of Judge Pasya was demanded by the situation and his failure to do so betrayed the extraordinary diligence, consciousness and thoroughness required of judges (PNP Narcom Director vs. Salazar, Jr. A.M. 96-9-332 RTC Aug. 15,2001,363 SCRA 8)
This is just one of the many cases of lack of coordination between the police, the fiscal and the judge. There are many others where guilty drug traffickers merely get a slap on the wrist for their extremely offensive acts against society. In the renewed and more intensified campaign to rid us of this menace, the more important entry on the scoreboard is not the number of arrests made but the number of final convictions obtained and correct jail sentences imposed on those arrested. And this calls for a more solid teamwork among the five pillars of the criminal justice system.
E-mail: josesison@edsamail.com.ph