The reason for their acquittal was that the prosecution lacked the evidence to prove the charges that the accused indeed sold or poseessed drugs.
The court found that while the charge was that the accused sold nine packs of shabu, only frive packs were presented.
The court also was not convinced of the conspiracy charge by the prosecution.
Here is the press relase submitted by lawyer Raymund Mercado who acted as counsel for the acquitted:
LAW PROTECTS DRUG
SUSPECT - SET FREE
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT LAST JANUARY 23, 2008 DISMISSED THE CASES AGAINST KHALIL OROZCO y VILLARIZA and CORNELIO GRAPA y ROSALES FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 [DRUG SELLING] AND SECTION 11 [ILLEGAL POSSESSION] REPUBLIC ACT 9165 AFTER ACTING FAVORABLY ON THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE FILED BY THE MERCADO & PARTNERS LAW FIRM THROUGH ITS’ SENIOR PARTNER ATTY. RAYMUND J.A. MERCADO.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 30 PRESIDED OVER BY HON. JUDGE CRESENCIO TAN GAVE CREDENCE ON THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE FILED BY THE MERCADO & PARTNERS LAW FIRM ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
1. THE NUMBER OF ALLEGED PLASTIC SACHET OF SHABU CONFISCATED ON THE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 NUMBERED ONLY FIVE BUT THE CRIMINAL INFORMATIONS FILED IN COURT FOR THE TWO [2] CASES TOTALLED NINE [9] IN ALL. THUS, THE ELEMENT OF CORPUS DELICTI REQUIRED IN DRUG CASES HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHED.
SUSPECT - SET FREE
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT LAST JANUARY 23, 2008 DISMISSED THE CASES AGAINST KHALIL OROZCO y VILLARIZA and CORNELIO GRAPA y ROSALES FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 [DRUG SELLING] AND SECTION 11 [ILLEGAL POSSESSION] REPUBLIC ACT 9165 AFTER ACTING FAVORABLY ON THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE FILED BY THE MERCADO & PARTNERS LAW FIRM THROUGH ITS’ SENIOR PARTNER ATTY. RAYMUND J.A. MERCADO.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 30 PRESIDED OVER BY HON. JUDGE CRESENCIO TAN GAVE CREDENCE ON THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE FILED BY THE MERCADO & PARTNERS LAW FIRM ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
1. THE NUMBER OF ALLEGED PLASTIC SACHET OF SHABU CONFISCATED ON THE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 NUMBERED ONLY FIVE BUT THE CRIMINAL INFORMATIONS FILED IN COURT FOR THE TWO [2] CASES TOTALLED NINE [9] IN ALL. THUS, THE ELEMENT OF CORPUS DELICTI REQUIRED IN DRUG CASES HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHED.
2. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE CONSPIRARY OF THE TWO ACCUSED IN THE CASE OF DRUG SELLING. THE COURT ADDED THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER ON THE PARTICIPATION OF ACCUSED GRAPA IN ANY WAY IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED. MERE PRESENCE OF A PERSON AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME DOES NOT MAKE HIM A CONSPIRATOR FOR CONSPIRARY TRANSCENDS COMPANIONSHIP.
THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE DRIVE AGAINTS ILLEGAL DRUGS DESERVES EVERYBODY SUPPORT. DRUG ADDICTION IS DETESTABLE IN ANY SOCIETY. HOWEVER, THE COURT HAS THE DUTY TO PROTECT THE ACCUSED WHERE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED FAILED TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
3 comments:
Jay,
Can the prosecutors file the case again and balance the number of sachets to the actual number confiscated?
I hate drugs with a passion.
Sadly, no. Can't file again. They call it double jeopardy. Once there is an acquittal, that's the end of the road.
But as practitioners, we can be persistent. There's that theoretical remedy called petition for review on questions of law. But, ek ek. It's a long shot.
I hope the law will eventually get those pushers.
Post a Comment