EDITORIAL - Beyond reasonable doubt

Law enforcers should study this Supreme Court ruling carefully if they don’t want their work to be wasted. Earlier this week a division of the SC acquitted a man who has been in prison for a decade for drug trafficking. Explaining its reversal of the conviction by the Iriga City Regional Trial Court in Bicol that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the SC said the seized drug evidence was mishandled, providing reasonable doubt about the guilt of Jovi Pornillos.

The evidence allegedly seized from Pornillos in a sting operation in May 2004 was declared as 0.4 grams of shabu. In a laboratory test, however, the evidence weighed only 0.2204 grams – a significant loss, the high tribunal noted, of 45 percent.

At the court proceedings, several theories were presented about the missing 0.1796 grams. One is that different weighing scales were used by the apprehending team and the crime laboratory. Another is that the lab did not take into account the weight of the sachets used as shabu containers. The SC, however, said the explanations were merely speculative, as no one formally admitted making a mistake.

It’s hardly the first time that a drug case has been thrown out because of technicalities that may seem trivial to some observers, but which carry significant weight especially for those who are wrongly accused. Law enforcers must remember that criminal conviction is based on a judicial determination of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That doubt can be introduced into a case if apprehending officers ignore or are not fully versed about the requirements for making a lawful arrest and confiscation of evidence.

In several cases, anti-narcotics agents have cried foul and accused judges and prosecutors of corruption by looking for loopholes to clear wealthy drug dealers. The cops may be telling the truth, but they will have to prove their accusations. They must also ensure that law enforcers will not provide those loopholes to the so-called “fix-cals” and “hoodlums in robes.”

Similar reminders are helpful in all criminal cases filed by the state, including those in connection with the pork barrel scam. It would be a shame if plunder charges are dismissed on a technicality or due to a badly prepared case, and the state provides the weapons needed by the guilty for an acquittal.