DOJ asked to reverse resolution junking drug rap vs Marcelino
Lieutenant Colonel Ferdinand Marcelino. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/LYN RILLON
The Philippine National Police-Anti-Illegal Drugs Group (PNP-AIDG) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on Tuesday asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to reverse its resolution dismissing the P380 million illegal drugs case against Lieutenant Colonel Ferdinand Marcelino and his Chinese companion Yan Yi Shou.
DOJ, through Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Theodore Villanueva, said there is not enough evidence to charge Marcelino and Yan in court.
READ: DOJ dismisses drug case vs Lt. Col. Marcelino
Marcelino, former intelligence officer of the PDEA, and Yan Yi Shou were arrested in a drug raid last January 21 in a house in Sampaloc, Manila where over P380 million worth of drugs were confiscated.
READ: Top narc busted: Say it ain’t so, Col. Marcelino
The DOJ noted that the search warrant for the house in Sampaloc was for a certain Lo Chi aka “Tanda,” Atong Lee aka “Atong” and a certain Chu.
The DOJ said that while Yan had the key to the house, it is not enough to show that they had control of the premises or prior knowledge that the house was a drug laboratory.
“Evidence must be presented to show that Marcelino and Yan had prior knowledge of what was to be found inside and what the two decided to do with the contents of the house after opening the house. There should be prior overt acts of exercising control, administration, possession to show dominion over the premises and to whatever is found therein,” the resolution stated.
In the 16-page joint omnibus motion, PNP-AIDG and PDEA presented a self-recorded phone conversation showing that Marcelino and Yan were planning to transfer the drugs inside the laboratory to another location, believing that PDEA is monitoring the area.
The authorities also insisted that possession of the key to the house “is by itself an overt act indicating exercise of control, dominion and possession.”
The fact that Yan was found arranging trays containing sachets of suspected shabu “are undoubtedly overt acts showing control, possession and dominion.”
PNP-AIDG and PDEA said the finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house raises the presumption of knowledge and possession which Marcelino and Yan failed to overcome.
“Please take note of the fact the respondents in this case categorically relied on defenses of pure denials, incredible alibis, self-serving statements, flawed arguments and irrelevant assertions with intent to distort the truth and confuse the [DOJ],” the joint omnibus motion stated.
They also accused Villanueva of concealing the second letter from National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Virgilio Mendez which states that Marcelino did not share any information regarding the illegal drug activities in the house at Felix Huertas in Manila.
“Such letter was intentionally concealed to get public sympathy to Marcelino and evade from possible criticism that indeed the resolution is exceedingly arbitrary and is absolutely no basis in truth and in fact,” the motion stated.
Marcelino said he was conducting a covert legitimate operation but failed to produce an order from a law enforcement agency.
PDEA and the police said Marcelino, being a member of the Navy, was operating outside his mandate and there are limitations set by law that has to be observed.
The DOJ resolution, the PDEA and the police said would create a dangerous precedent for all future cases against law enforcers.
“If this resolution will not be reversed, it will be disadvantageous for both the Goverment and its citizens. The government may be subjected to future unnecessary and wasteful litigations defending abusive law enforcer. On the other hand, citizens may be subjected to information verifications by law enforcers even in the absence of authority to conduct the same that may violate their privacy rights,” the motion read.
PDEA and the PNP-AIDG also asked Villanueva to inhibit from the case.
Acting Justice Secretary Emmanuel Caparas said he is expecting the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
“It is a controversial case that needs to be discussed further… I think at the very least, it is a matter that needs to be discussed further. It is a matter that needs to be argued between the parties… It’s just fitting that it go through the entire process now,” Caparas told reporters. RAM/rga
