CA clears man of drugs case six years after his conviction

CEBU, Philippines - A man is cleared from charges after he petitioned his case in the Court of Appeals.

Associate Justice Gabriel Ingles, in his 12-page penned decision, acquitted Eddie Tabal, a resident of Barangay Guba, Cebu City for a violation of Section 11 (illegal possession of drugs), Article II of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

“Because of several loopholes in the prosecution evidence, as well as the gaps in the chain of custody, it is our conclusion that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs. Consequently, there could be no assurance that the specimen of shabu offered in court as evidence against the accused-appellant was the same one recovered from him, brought to the police station and subsequently, submitted for laboratory examination,” the decision read.

Ingles ordered the immediate release of the accused-appellant from jail, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

In 2008, accused-appellant was convicted by the trial court for illegal possession of drugs. He was meted to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for 12 to 15 years and a fine of P300,000.

Accused-appellant through counsel, however, appealed his conviction claiming the trial court erred in convicting him for the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In the evening of April 7, 2005, he said he was just staying in his house after playing a basketball game when he got into disagreement with his father because of the latter’s mistress and constant drinking.

Therein, he said they were arguing and wrestling when the police officers and barangay tanods arrived. Thereafter, they were brought to the barangay hall.

In the barangay hall, he said SPO3 Joel Suello frisked him and nothing was recovered from his possession.

However, he said Suello told him that it was his father who prodded them to file the complaint for illegal possession of drugs.

Helen, mother of accused-appellant, testified that Suello told her that her husband allegedly induced the police officers “to plant evidence against her son so that he would be imprisoned.”

The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the prosecution, maintained that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and sufficient to convict accused-appellant.

OSG added that the prosecution was able to prove that accused-appellant was indeed in possession of drugs when he was frisked by the responding police.

The seized item was brought to PNP Crime Laboratory and was later found positive for methalamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

With the foregoing facts, Ingles ruled in favor of the accused-appellant.

He said police officers failed to establish the chain of custody of the evidence from the time of the seizure up to the submission of the same to the PNP Crime Laboratory.  He added that nothing in the records shows a complete narration regarding the chain of custody of the seized evidence.

Apart from that, he said the evidence confiscated by the police from accused-appellant was inadmissible as evidence.

“Thus, by his (SPO1 Querobin) own express admission, accused-appellant asserts that he was not committing a crime when the police officers arrested him. As such, there was no valid warrantless arrest effected on his person and in effect, the search which followed was invalid and all items allegedly seized therefrom are considered inadmissible as evidence against him,” the decision read.  (FREEMAN)