CA to Cebu court: Don’t admit shabu as evidence

CEBU — The Court of Appeals (CA) has reversed its earlier decision admitting as evidence over 200 grams of shabu seized from an alleged Hong Kong Triad member in 2001.

In a 26-page ruling, the appellate court ordered Judge Fortunato de Gracia of Regional Trial Court Branch 15 to declare as inadmissible the shabu that authorities confiscated from the Starex van of Giovanni "Nanan’ Gimenez on Sept. 7, 2001.

"An amended judgment is hereby rendered by us setting aside the orders issued by the respondent judge on May 16, 2002 and May 20, 2002 in Criminal Case No. CBU-59372 and commanding said respondent judge to declare as inadmissible in Criminal Case no. CBU-59372 the packs which were offered in evidence therein," the CA said.

Last July 29, the appellate court junked Gimenez’s petition for the lower court not to admit the seized shabu.

In his petition, Gimenez argued that the illegal substance was seized by virtue of a search warrant which the court had quashed.

But this time, the CA said it found Gimenez’s motion for reconsideration meritorious, declaring that De Gracia acted in grave abuse of discretion when he admitted the shabu as evidence and outrightly denied Gimenez’s motion for reconsideration.

The CA said Search Warrant No. SW-480 was "duly quashed later by Judge Ildefonso Suerte and the respondent judge himself for being a general warrant."

With its new ruling, the appellate court, in effect, upheld Gimenez’s argument that the seized five packs of shabu were "fruits of a poisonous tree."

Policemen seized the shabu when they reportedly intercepted the van as it was about to exit the condominium compound where Gimenez was said to be staying.

In admitting the seized shabu even if the search warrant had been quashed, De Gracia said the evidence sought to be suppressed was recovered under circumstances which constitute "an established and accepted exception against unreasonable searches and seizures."

De Gracia said the search, even with the quashing of the warrant, could still be valid because it falls under the exemptions on warrantless searches on moving vehicles. — Freeman News Service