Court of Appeals orders revival of 2 cases vs. Kerwin Espinosa

Kerwin Espinosa (INQUIRER FILE PHOTO / NINO JESUS ORBETA)

MANILA, Philippines – The Court of Appeals (CA) has ordered the Manila Regional Trial Court to revive two of the three criminal cases against self-confessed drug dealer Rolan “Kerwin” Espinosa.

In a-12 page decision of the CA’s 12th division, it partly granted the appeal filed by the government when it vacated and set aside the disposition of two of the three criminal cases and ordered the Manila court to continue with the consolidated trial.

“The (two) cases are remanded for the continuation of the consolidated trial on the merits,” the CA said in the decision written by Associate Justice Mary Charlene Hernandez-Azura.

The two cases that will be revived are for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and for violating Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Espinosa is facing three separate criminal cases before the Manila court for violating Section 5 (illegal sale and distribution of dangerous drugs) and Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) and for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.

On Aug. 14, 2020, the Manila Court found Espinosa guilty of illegal possession of firearms but acquitted him on the two drug charges in a consolidated decision.

The prosecution sought to reconsider the decision, which was denied on March 14, 2022. Thus, the case was elevated to the CA.

In partly granting the Office of the Solicitor General’s motion, the CA considered the constitutional right against double jeopardy, which states that no person should be tried for the same offense twice.

“The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham,” the CA said.

In this case, the CA said they find merit in the argument of the government lawyer that there was grave abuse of discretion and a violation of right to due process of the prosecution.

The CA said “there is adequate showing that the prosecution was denied due process to fully present its evidence” in two criminal cases.

It pointed out that the Manila court’s decision did not mention that there was a consolidated trial of the three cases.

The CA said the record showed that the prosecution rested only on one of the three criminal cases.

The Manila court said the prosecution should have raised the issue during the promulgation of the case.

However, the court said the prosecution was not given a video conference link for the promulgation

“However, as pointed out by petitioner, the handling public prosecutor, albeit available for video conference hearing on the date of the promulgation of the assailed decision, was not able to receive an invitation link. The RTC seriously erred in proceeding with the promulgation of judgment without the public prosecutor despite his presence as early as 10:00 A.M,” the CA pointed out.