Cebu City government joins probe on arrest of ‘drug courier’

CEBU CITY — The city government has joined the investigation into the controversial arrest of a suspected drug courier and Hong Kong triad member by the detective bureau of the city police.

Councilor Sylvan Jakosalem particularly wants to find out why the police divided the 337.97 grams of shabu among suspect Nanan Jimenez and two others, Jovan Jimenez and Victor Ceniza, who was arrested with Nanan last Sept. 7.

Jakosalem believes the total volume of shabu found inside the suspects’ Starex van should be charged to each of the three suspects.

Possession of 200 grams of shabu and above is considered a heinous crime for which the death penalty could be imposed.

Jakosalem said the arresting team divided the seized shabu as such: 135.65 grams for Nanan Jimenez, 137.58 for Jovan Jimenez, and 64.74 grams for Ceniza.

Jakosalem, who was tasked by Mayor Tomas Osmeña to look into the controversy, said he would try to find out who among the members of the detective bureau decided to divide the shabu evidence.

Jakosalem is alarmed that the division of the seized evidence may lead the police to lose the case against the suspects.

In fact, he said, the suspects can already post bail and be able to continue with their alleged illegal drug business because the evidence against them does not fall under the category requiring capital punishment.

Denial

Detective bureau chief Roy Codiñera, however, denied dividing the shabu evidence among the three suspects.

Codiñera said the seized shabu has all been charged against the three suspects. He said the shabu was found inside the Starex van where the three were arrested.

Codiñera showed reporters a warrant of arrest and other documents showing the shabu has been charged against the three. The warrant stated that no bail was recommended for the three.

What he failed to produce was the written information about the filing of charges, claiming he had left it in his house.

Meanwhile, Barili Regional Trial Court Judge Ildefonso Suerte has denied giving any verbal order to Codiñera for him to turn over the van to Pedro Leslie Salva, the lawyer of Nanan Jimenez.

Suerte said he has never issued a verbal order in his judicial career. "It should be in writing...I have not tried it yet in my entire law practice," he said.

Codiñera earlier claimed that the van has been in the custody of Salva since Sept. 27 upon the verbal approval of Suerte.

Suerte said that as far as he could remember, the police suggested that the van be placed under Salva’s custody but that he required the police to file a motion in court for such a move.

Suerte said he only saw the van once when police brought it to court. "I could not do that because that is outside my job and I don’t want to blemish my integrity and reputation as a judge," he said.

As a matter of procedure, all confiscated evidence should be presented to the judge who issued the search warrant immediately after the confiscation.

Complaint

Suerte blamed the prosecutor’s office and the police for not informing him that a complaint has been filed against the suspects, saying under the rules, the issuing judge can quash a search warrant if no complaint has been filed.

Had the prosecutors and the police informed him about the filing of the case, he would not have issued an order quashing the warrant, thus making it useless for seized articles to be used as evidence against the accused.

Suerte said he is now studying if he can reverse his earlier order since the prosecutors and the police are planning to file a motion for reconsideration.

He admitted that he is now confused with what really transpired.

The city prosecutor’s office, on the other hand, is considering an administrative charge against Suerte for quashing the search warrant.

Prosecutor Tolomeo Dinoy said they are filing the case after lodging a motion for reconsideration.

Dinoy said Suerte can be held liable for negligence of duty for allegedly causing "serious damage to the prosecution."

He said Suerte could have inquired first whether the information on the case has already been filed in court. — Freeman News Service