The Department of Justice has asked the Valenzuela City regional trial court to reverse its decision dismissing the drug charges filed against nine individuals implicated in the P6.4-billion shabu shipment seized in May last year.
In a motion for reconsideration, the DOJ panel chaired by Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Rassendell Rex Gingoyon sought the reconsideration of the Valenzuela City RTC Branch 284 decision that dismissed the complaint for transportation and delivery of illegal drugs under Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act against the accused led by Filipino-Chinese trader Richard Tan and customs broken Mark Taguba II.
The government prosecutors argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for forum shopping due to a separate case for importation of illegal drugs filed against the same accused before the Manila RTC.
The DOJ prosecutors argued the difference between the two cases in justifying why they were filed in different courts.
“We respectfully argue that, by no stretch of imagination, the crime of transportation of dangerous drugs is a separate and distinct crime and under the circumstances at hand cannot be said to be part of the crime of importation of dangerous drugs,” the motion stated.
The DOJ explained that the alleged importation of drugs took place on May 16 last year at Manila International Container Port while the transportation and delivery of the same contraband occurred on May 23 and 24 that ended in the warehouse located in Valenzuela.
The prosecutors said the Valenzuela RTC misconstrued the transportation of drugs case as part of the importation case in Manila RTC due to typographical error in the latter where the date of importation was dated May 26, 2017, when it should have been May 16, 2017.
According to the prosecutors, necessary amendments have already been made before the Manila RTC for such error.
The DOJ panel also argued that the acts of importation and delivery of illegal drugs are separate acts punishable under different provisions in R.A. 9165.
“As such, it is immaterial whether the acts of transportation of respondents alleged in the two information were for the purpose of achieving a common ultimate design or intent for what is material is that under the applicable law which is R.A. No. 9165, the said acts constitute separate and distinct offenses,” read the appeal.
The DOJ also denied committing forum shopping in the cases against Tan and Taguba.
“For forum shopping to exist, the actions must involve the same transaction, including the essential facts and circumstances thereof, and must raise identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. The mere filing of two or more cases based on the same incident does not necessarily constitute forum-shopping,” the appeal said.
In the assailed ruling last April 23, RTC Branch 284 Judge Arthur Melicor granted the motion of Tan, Taguba and fellow accused and customs broker Teejay Marcellana to dismiss the drug transportation and delivery case filed by the DOJ against them.
The RTC held that the prosecution’s move “clearly bears the hallmarks of forum shopping” and “betray [their] intent to secure favorable judgment from different courts.”
It stressed that the state prosecutors filed a drug importation case before a Manila court, which has the same set of accused and based on same arguments.
Aside from the three, also indicted before both courts were traders Kenneth Dong and Manny Li; and Eirene Mae Tatad, Chen I-Min, Jhu Ming Jhun and Chen Rong Huan.
The Valenzuela RTC earlier dismissed the cases for importation, transportation, and delivery of illegal drugs against the same accused for lack of jurisdiction.
The DOJ refiled the cases, but this time divided them into two – the case for transportation and delivery of drugs before the Valenzuela RTCA and the case for the importation of drugs before the Manila RTC.
The Manila RTC has already ordered the arrest of the accused in the non-bailable charges.
In indicting the accused, the panel determined that the combination of the individual participation of each of the respondents, either as shipper, consolidator, facilitator, broker, financier, consignee, or warehouse lessee – reveals a pattern of overt acts indicative of conspiracy to import into the country the dangerous drugs.
