A big letdown
Shock and frustration, sadness and disappointment. These were just some of the emotions that met the dismissal of the case against two of the three so-called “Alabang Boys,” scions of wealthy families arrested on Sept. 19, 2008 for drug possession and selling in a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
Last Friday, Judge Juanita Guerrero of the Muntinlupa City regional trial court dismissed the case against Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph on a “technicality.” “The link in the custody of the drug evidence has been broken,” Guerrero said in her decision. “The failure of the prosecution … to establish all the links in the chain of custody is fatal to the case at bar.”
Thus, a high-profile case that could have been hailed as one of fastest to be tried and decided in the annals of a snail-paced Philippine justice system has turned into another national letdown.
The case was supposed to be airtight. In October 2010, the same judge denied Brodett and Joseph’s petition for bail, noting that “the evidence presented by the prosecution was strong or sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”
Expressing perhaps what most Filipinos felt, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said this “development” surprised and shocked her. Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo offered a consuelo de bobo: The accused were not found innocent, he said. “What the judge said was there was an error in the process of handling the evidence.”
But for now, this is not much of a concern anymore for most concerned Filipinos. Their biggest worry is the impact of the decision on future drug cases and, inevitably, on the war on illegal drugs. Robredo summed up this sentiment when he said: “We cannot just forget the case. What might happen now every time there is a drug case, it is possible to intentionally bungle the process even if there is enough evidence. They would disregard the procedures so the case would be dismissed.” Director General Jose Gutierrez, PDEA’s present head, has admitted that the ruling has “affected the morale of his men.”
This may be the first time the public was made aware of the existence of the “link in the custody of evidence” rule in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, or RA 9165. But, by De Lima’s admission, there have been “so many cases similar to this which were dismissed because of the same technicality … procedural requirements that are really very difficult to satisfy.”
Gutierrez cited at least two others: (1) that representatives of the Department of Justice and barangay officials be present during drug raids, which he said would be difficult to comply with if the raids were done, say, before dawn; (2) that the inventory of seized items or paraphernalia be done right on the crime scene, even when it’s not safe to do it there.
To be sure, the three requirements add to the countless tricks and tools that lawyers can use to frustrate justice, such as by prolonging litigation or keeping their clients out of jail even for non-bailable crimes. They also enable crooked officers of the law—enforcers, defense counsels, prosecutors or judges—to fast-track the consignment of even “airtight” drug cases to the dustbin of dismissed cases.
The rules even seem to be more zealous in protecting drug criminals in the same manner that international conventions and our laws give special rights to women and children. There is no question that RA 9165 and other laws need amending to plug the loopholes that make it extremely difficult to convict the accused in drug-related crimes, particularly those who are rich, powerful and influential. The drug lords, traffickers and their cohorts and protectors in government must now be laughing their hearts out after hearing the decision on the Brodett-Joseph case.
Unless we act fast, we could wake up one day to find ourselves going the way of Latin American countries like Colombia and Mexico, where drug lords are firmly entrenched and are said to hold key public officials in their pockets, even as they wage a bloody and murderous war against the authorities.
