Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2 Pakistani nationals face raps for possession of drugs over P1M
THE Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office recommended no bail for the two Pakistani nationals arrested last month during an entrapment operation.
Chaudhry Aziz, 33, and Majid B. Khan, 30, both from Islamabad, Pakistan, are facing cases for selling and possession of dangerous drugs.
Government agents arrested them last Oct. 26 and seized assorted dangerous and regulated drugs worth P1 million.
They were sent to the Cebu City Jail in Barangay Kalunasan.
Seized from them were more than 2,000 vials of Ketamine, Nitrazepam and Lorezepam, all tranquilizer drugs; 44 boxes of Viagra, a potency pill; and 39 strips of Cytotec, an abortifacient drug.
The Dangerous Drugs Board has already labeled Ketamine as a dangerous drug following reports of its widespread illegal use in rave parties and dance clubs.
The US Drug Enforcement Administration even considers Ketamine a date-rape drug, as its effects would make the users suffer from delirium, amnesia and long-term memory loss and cognitive difficulties.
In a resolution, Cebu City Assistant Prosecutor Ernesto Narido Jr. said the evidence presented against the two accused “overwhelmingly” established the accusations against them.
In his affidavit, PO3 Priscillano Gingoyon narrated that he was designated as the poseur buyer in the buy-bust against Aziz and Khan conducted inside room 409 of Cebu Business Hotel.
Gingoyon said that the foreigners transacted with him for the delivery of dangerous drugs amounting to P350,000. When the transaction was done, they then arrested Aziz and Khan.
Gingoyon also disclosed that before the buy-bust, they conducted surveillance and monitoring operations against the two.
Aziz and Khan denied the accusations against them.
In their counter-affidavit, Aziz and Khan assailed the claims as “highly improbable.”
Both argued that it was impossible for them to sneak in drugs considering the security measures implemented in the airport. They alleged that the evidence against them were planted.
Narido, however, said “the established rule is that a preliminary investigation is not the occasion for a full and exhaustive display of parties’ evidence. It is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and accused is probably guilty.” (KNT)
