"There is no probable cause to issue an arrest warrant against Ongpin, said the judge."
"There is no probable cause to issue an arrest warrant against Ongpin, said the judge."
Hopefully, finally, justice has been done to Julian Roberto S. Ongpin.
On Nov. 15, 2021, the Regional Trial Court Branch 27 of La Union dismissed the case of illegal possession of drugs against him. There is no probable cause to issue an arrest warrant against him, said the judge, Romeo E. Agacita Jr.
In law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuance of a search warrant. A probable cause in illegal drugs possession could lead to imprisonment and worse, to conviction of the accused.
On Oct. 18, 2021, a Department of Justice resolution charged Ongpin, 29, son of tycoon Roberto V. Ongpin, with possession of illegal drugs, a non-bailable offense. He was accused of possessing 12.6855 grams of cocaine in nine self-sealing small sachets –among the 18 sachets found at the scene of a suspected crime.
The four-man police SOCO team had cordoned and ransacked his Room SV2 at the Flotsam Jetsam Hostel in San Juan, La Union in the morning of Sept. 18, 2021. They received a call for help from the hotel upon Ongpin’s request. He had found his girlfriend, Bree Patricia Jonson Agunod, hanging lifeless in the toilet of the room, an apparent suicide. The police found a metal chain next to her body.
Among the items found in the room were the nine sachets of white powder substance. They were identified as cocaine much later after a chemistry analysis by the police crime laboratory. The sachets were not properly marked during the time of the police inventory. Ongpin denied owning the drugs. The sachets were not in his possession and were seized in his room while he was away, in a hospital.
“Nowhere in the said Inventory of Evidence Collected is there an indication that the plastic sachets were individually marked and signed by the seizing officers. It could not, therefore, be determined how the unmarked drugs were handled upon confiscation. Evidently, the alteration of the seized items was a possibility absent their immediate marking thereof. Worse, the prosecution never tried to offer any explanation of the absence of the required individual markings on the seized plastic sachets in the inventory form. This singular instance of noncompliance alone jeopardized the chain of custody,” commented Agacita, the judge hearing the Ongpin case. He is presiding judge of La Union’s RTC Branch 27 in San Fernando City, the provincial capital.
The judge noted that the police SOCO did not observe the procedures and the chain of custody rule in handling evidence. These are required by Sec. 21 of Republic Act 9165 which amended the notorious RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) that gave rise to rampant cases of planting or contamination of evidence in drug buy-busts.
The DOJ had contended that there was no need to comply with the procedures set by RA 9165 because the investigation on Sept. 18, 2021 was about a dead body and not about illegal drugs.
On the contrary, said the judge, “jurisprudence consistently requires that Sec. 21 comes into play as long as there has been a seizure and confiscation of drugs, as in this case, to give life to the purpose of the law.”
Agacita cited a recent Supreme Court ruling, in People v. Tumabini:
“A plain reading of the law (RA 9165) shows that it applies as long as there has been a seizure and confiscation of drugs. There is nothing in the statutory provision which states that it is only applicable when there is a warrantless seizure in a buy-bust operation. Thus, it should be applied in every situation when an apprehending team seizes and confiscates drugs from an accused, whether through a buy-bust operation or through a search warrant.”
Judge Agacita pointed out the requirements of Sec. 21: “In every situation where there is a seizure and confiscation of drugs, the presence of the accused, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official, is required during the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drugs, because they shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”
“Even if the Court would overlook the non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under Sec. 21, still, the measures undertaken by the authorities, as they claim, on its face, appear highly unreliable. The Inventory of Evidence Collected was not signed by their lone civilian witness, Joselito Niebres. Even the document denominated as ‘Person Who Entered the Crime Scene’ did not contain his signature. As a matter of fact, nowhere in his sworn statements did he categorically state of having witnessed the marking of the seized evidence. He merely stated that he saw the apprehending officers collect the alleged illegal drugs. Plainly, the claimed presence of Niebres cannot be countenanced as substantial compliance in this case,” the judge said. Niebres is the hotel’s security officer.
“The failure to observe the proper procedure negates the operation of the regularity accorded to police officers. Moreover, to allow the presumption to prevail notwithstanding clear lapses of established procedure is to negate the safeguards precisely placed by the law to ensure that no abuse is committed,” said Judge Agacita.
Concluded the judge:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, after an independent assessment of the evidence on record which includes Resolution dated October 18, 2021 and supporting evidence, the Court is constrained to DISMISS Criminal Case No. 14154 for lack of probable cause to issue warrant of arrest against accused Julian Roberto Ongpin y Stone, in view of the utter non-compliance of the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165.
“The Precautionary Hold Departure Order dated October 8, 2021 issued against the accused Julian Roberto Ongpin y Stone is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE.”
