THE Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City on Friday declared the eldest son of Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla not guilty of the illegal drug possession charges filed against him after he was caught receiving a parcel containing 893.91 grams of kush, or high-grade marijuana, valued at P1.25 million.
The ruling came barely three months after Juanito Jose Remulla III was arrested in his home following a “controlled delivery operation” conducted by agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in October 2022.
Juanito’s arrest triggered calls for Remulla’s resignation so as not to influence the outcome of the investigation on the case but the latter stayed on to his post.
The justice chief, however, distanced himself from the case and refused to entertain questions related to his son’s case.
“After an assiduous review of the evidence of the parties in this case, there is reasonable doubt that accused received and possessed the parcel delivered to him with the knowledge, consciousness, and awareness that said parcel contained the alleged two bags of marijuana,” Las Piñas RTC Branch 179 Acting Presiding Judge Ricardo Moldez II said.
Judge Moldez noted that for a successful prosecution of an offense for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish three important elements, such as: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
Juanito as defense witness
Juanito, who was presented by the defense as its lone witness, claimed that on October 11, 2022 at around 11 a.m., he was awakened from sleep by his girlfriend informing him that there were two deliverymen waiting for him outside his house.
When he went out of the house, he saw two men clad in delivery clothing, wearing matching bull caps and asked him if he was Juanito Remulla.
After confirming that he was the person they were looking for, the supposed deliverymen told him that there was a delivery for him but he told them that he was not expecting a delivery.
He added that he was also asked if he knew a certain Benjamin Huffman to which he replied in the negative.
After presenting his driver’s license as proof of identity, he heard one of the men said: “Meron Juanito, tapos meron Remulla, pwede na ito.”
Thereafter, he was presented a long bond paper with boxes for him to sign and a brown nondescript box without any identifying marks.
After signing, the box was handed to him and the men took pictures of him and then he was immediately arrested.
Juanito told the court he did not receive the parcel and that it was just handed to him.
He recounted that he even threw the box away as he felt he was being set up.
Juanito said he did not file a case against the persons who arrested him because he was not given the opportunity to do so.
Possibility of tampering of evidence
In ruling in favor of Juanito, the court said the testimonies of prosecution witnesses failed to clearly prove the existence of “animus possidendi” or the intent to possess on the part of the accused.
The court noted that Juanito’s reactions were consistent with a person who was not expecting a parcel or a package from a certain Benjamin Huffman or from any other person unknown to him and who is oblivious to the parcel’s contents.
The court also pointed out that in a controlled delivery, the mere designation as the consignee or even the acceptance of a package containing illicit items, by itself, is not sufficient to establish criminal liability.
It stressed that other circumstances must be present to show that the recipient was really aware of its contents.
Under Republic Act 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, a controlled delivery happened when the consignment of any dangerous drug is detected and the law enforcers knowingly allow the package to travel its destination or to the address of the consignee in order to establish the person/persons involved in the commission of the offense.
“Unfortunately, apart from showing that the package or parcel was handed to the accused, the prosecution did not present other evidence to show that the former knew that it contained marijuana. The prosecution failed to show that accused, by receiving the parcel, knew that he was also possessing illegal drugs,” the court declared.
Furthermore, the court said it has “serious reservations” on the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized.
It noted that there is nothing in the records that would show how the parcel was handled, stored and preserved from the time it was discovered on September 28, 2022 by the Customs Anti-Illegal Drug Task Force (CAIDTF) until it was turned over to a Customs examiner.
“The prosecution failed to establish that during the ‘detection stage’ or before the parcel allegedly containing the illegal drugs were turned over to the PDEA that precautions were taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the parcel and its content and that there was no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same during the said period,” the ruling pointed out.
“Because of these, this Court is unable to discount the possibility of evidence tampering on that occasion,” it added.