The Court of Appeals has ordered the Manila City Regional Trial Court to revive the illegal drug trade and possession charges against self-confessed drug lord Rolan “Kerwin” Espinosa.
In a 12-page decision, the CA’s 12th Division through Associate Justice Mary Charlene Hernandez-Azura “vacated and set aside” the August 14, 2020 decision and March 14, 2022 resolution rendered by the Manila City RTC Branch 26.
This acquitted Espinosa of violation of Section 5 (illegal sale and distribution of dangerous drugs) and Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, on the ground of the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The March 2022 resolution denied the prosecution’s motion reconsideration of the August 2020 decision on the ground that a judgement of acquittal cannot be reversed as this would violate Espinosa’s right against double jeopardy.
But the CA upheld the government’s claim that the prosecution was denied due process to fully present its evidence before issuing the ruling, which warranted the reversal of the trial court’s decision.
In its petition, the Office of the Solicitor General asserted that the trial court judges who handled the cases committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling in favor of Espinosa. Rey E. Requejo
The OSG asserted that that double jeopardy does not apply when the trial court acts with grave abuse of discretion, violating the right to due process.
The chief state lawyer lamented that the decision was promulgated by the trial court without the presence of the handling public prosecutor, which could have clarified in open court that the prosecution has yet to rest its case.
The OSG noted that the prosecution rested its case only in the illegal possession of firearms charges and not on the illegal drug charges against Espinosa.
It pointed out that the trial court’s decision did not mention of any consolidation of the three criminal cases against Espinosa.
“However, as pointed out by petitioner, the handling public prosecutor, albeit available for video conference hearing on the date of the promulgation of the assailed decision, was not able to receive an invitation link. The RTC seriously erred in proceeding with the promulgation of judgment without the public prosecutor despite his presence as early as 10:00 A.M,” the CA pointed out.
“Accordingly, the cases are remanded for the continuation of the consolidated trial on the merits …,” the CA directed.
