NICANOR FAELDON: Conspiracy to import illegal drugs and protect drug traffickers. —NIÑO JESUS ORBETA
There is probable cause to indict former Customs Commissioner Nicanor Faeldon and the others suspected of involvement in the smuggling of a P6.4-billion “shabu” (crystal meth) shipment from China that slipped past the Bureau of Customs (BOC) in May, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) insisted on Friday.
In a nine-page reply to the counter-affidavits of Faeldon and the other respondents, the complainant, PDEA agent Norman Balquiedra, told a panel of Department of Justice prosecutors that there was criminal intent in the importation of the container van where five metal cylinders containing 604 kilos of shabu were found.
Charges were also brought against former and current BOC officials Milo Maestrecampo, Neil Anthony Estrella, Joel Pinawin, Oliver Valiente, as well as the shipment’s brokers, importers and consignees, including whistleblower Mark Taguba.
Conspiracy
They were all charged with conspiracy to import illegal drugs and protect drug traffickers, as well as corruption and obstruction of justice.
Balquiedra said the PDEA had established that the drug shipment slipped past customs “either through corrupt will or out of sheer incompetence” of the respondents.
Their action violated Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, he added.
“This fact was too glaring to require much underscoring and emphasis and every single individual who processed the importation and subsequent release of the dangerous drugs, regardless of their intent, are equally liable for the importation thereof,” Balquiedra said.
Disputing the respondents’ claim that they could not be held liable for corruption, he pointed out that under Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, “gross inexcusable negligence” or any official act that caused injury to the government was ground for corruption.
Admissible
Balquiedra also asked the prosecution panel to dismiss the respondents’ claim of hearsay. He cited a Supreme Court ruling that said hearsay evidence was admissible during the preliminary investigation stage and could be used to determine probable cause.
The PDEA agent accused some of the respondents of using “laborious, yet lamenting arguments which seemingly endeavor to mislead the panel and to veer away from the issues at hand.”
Probable cause
“The complainant will not belabor to discuss anymore each and every point raised by the respondents as it is the humble submission of the (PDEA) that the complaint has shown probable cause to warrant the indictment of the respondents for the offenses charged,” he said.
Balquiedra said the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents discussed the merits and validity of evidence that were best threshed out in a full-blown court trial.