Friday, November 21, 2008 Court clears John-John Osmeña By Jujemay G. Awit Sun.Star Staff Reporter
THE Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed yesterday the case against former Cebu vice governor John Gregory “John-John” Osmeña for allegedly coddling importers of illegal drugs.
RTC Judge Eric Menchavez said the prosecutors failed to establish that there was an illegal importation.
“It is necessary to convict first the illegal importer before the prosecutor can accuse somebody of coddling, because if the accused will be acquitted, then there is no reason to prosecute anybody of coddling,” read Menchavez’s 11-page order dismissing the case.
“So, it is logical to say that if that is the case, Osmeña is accused of coddling an unknown person or a person unknown to him,” he said.
Osmeña was charged with violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, particularly Section 4, which focuses on the “importation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals.”
The law provides for a penalty of up to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to P500,000 on “any person who acts as a protector/coddler of any violator of the provisions.”
Menchavez said that when the case was still heard before RTC Branch 13 Judge Meinrado Paredes, the latter directed prosecutors to prove illegal importation.
2 at large
Also accused of violating Republic Act 9165 are Mike Cummings and Dirk Hultz. These are the foreigners that Osmeña is accused of coddling. But the two foreigners have yet to be arrested.
Cummings was named the consignee of 1,500 kilograms of the shabu precursor pseudoephedrine, a shipment that was seized at the port of Cebu on March 5, 2004.
“The court also noted that the prosecution itself failed to convince the court that accused knew his supposed associates before March 2004, before the alleged importation of subject chemicals was declared by authorities as illegal,” read the order.
Osmeña, through lawyer Edgar Gica, sought the judicial determination of probable cause and the quashal of the information against him.
The prosecutors opposed the move, saying that determination of probable cause is executive in nature and thus, lies in the hands of Department of Justice prosecutors and not the judge.
But Menchavez ruled that a judge may still dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause.
Consent
Menchavez affirmed Paredes’ stand in his confrontation with Taguig City Prosecutor Archi-medes Manabat, State Prosecutors Juan Pedro Navera, Irwin Maraya and Llena Ipong; and Assistant City Prosecutor Jose Nathaniel. He said they needed to prove the element of “knowing and willful consent” and that Osmeña used his power and position to protect Cummings and Hultz.
One of the prosecutors’ circumstantial evidence to prove coddling was Osmeña’s alleged phone conversation with Supt. Primo Golingay of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (Pdea) Compliance Service.
In the conversation, he allegedly sought the release of the shipment.
But according to the order, Golingay refused to help the then public official if the papers were not in order. After that conversation, Golingay admitted in his affidavit that he did not hear from Osmeña anymore.
“(It) clearly established that Osmeña did not use his public position and power to protect or coddle Cummings and Hultz or commit an act of shielding, harboring, screening supposed illegal importers,” Menchavez said.
Permit
As for the pseudoephedrine, Menchavez recognized that Pdea issued a special permit for the importation of the precursor, albeit for only 100 kilograms.
So this could not cover an illegal importation, the judge ruled.
Menchavez also acknowledged that in 2004, pseudoephedrine was only considered a drug precursor. It was only on July 19, 2005 that it was classified as a dangerous drug.
The judge also said that the former employees of Osmeña at the Office of the Vice Governor who were named officers of Coastside Ventures, the consignee of the shipment, were dropped from the list of suspects in the case.
That move, he said, erased a possible link to Osmeña in the case.
Menchavez also tackled Paredes’ former handling of the case saying, “The proceedings on June 20, 2008 were crucial to the prosecution in the sense that it received a hint that the mind of the court was gravely in doubt as to the existence of probable cause against Osmeña as protector or coddler of illegal drug importers as charged.”
The prosecutors, however, saw this as bias on the part of Judge Paredes, whom they asked to inhibit himself from the case.
