Justice Secretary Menardo I. Guevarra on Saturday, Nov. 20, said the Bureau of Immigration (BI) has not lifted the immigration lookout bulletin order (ILBO) issued against Julian Roberto S. Ongpin despite the dismissal by the trial court of the possession of illegal drugs case filed against him.
Guevarra said the ILBO has not been lifted because Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors will file on Monday a motion to reconsider the dismissal order issued last Nov. 15 by La Union Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Romeo E. Agacita Jr.
With the ILBO, Julian’s movements in the country’s ports and airports are being monitored by BI agents.
With the dismissal of the charge against Julian, the RTC also lifted the precautionary hold departure order (PHDO) issued against him.
Julian, son of billionaire businessman and former Trade and Industry Minister Roberto V. Ongpin, was charged with illegal possession of 12.6 grams of cocaine, a prohibited drug. Julian denied ownership of the prohibited drug and said the drug was not recovered from him physically.
The prohibited drug was allegedly recovered inside a San Juan, La Union hotel room where he and the late artist Breanna “Bree” Jonson checked in last Sept. 17.
Last Sept. 18, Breanna was found unconscious and later died. Julian has become a person of interest in Breanna’s death.
Aside from the DOJ’s motion for reconsideration, Guevarra said Julian’s ILBO has not been lifted because the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is still probing Breanna’s death.
In dismissing the charge, Judge Agacita ruled that the policemen who arrested Julian failed to comply with the provisions of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Section 21 of RA 9165 imposes a strict compliance with the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs.
The law requires that the seized dangerous drugs must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same; and the seized drugs must be turned over to a forensic laboratory within 24 hours from confiscation for examination.”
In his order, Judge Agacita said:
“It is specifically provided that the prohibited drugs be immediately marked by the apprehending officer as soon as they are seized from the accused to prevent the switching, ‘planting,’ or contamination of evidence. Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is necessary because the illegal drug’s unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.
“A careful scrutiny of the Inventory of Evidence Collected discloses that, at the time of the seizure of alleged illegal drugs, the ‘eight (8) sealed transparent sachet containing white substance’ and ‘ten (10) sealed plastic sachet containing white substance’ were merely marked as ‘JSD-B’ and ‘JSD-A.’
“Nowhere in the said Inventory of Evidence Collected is there an indication that 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.
“The processing was not in the presence of Ongpin since at that time, he was brought by police officers to the hospital for medical examination.
“Neither the presence of the insulating witnesses, I.e., representatives from the media or Department of Justice (DOJ) and any elected public officials, required under Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 because the law requires them to sign the copies of the inventory and to be given thereof, were secured.
“In the case at bar, the prosecutions’ narrative that the apprehending officers were not able to comply with the provisions of Sec. 21 of RA 9165 in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, i.e., the responding police officers were dispatched to investigate a dead human body (Found Dead Body), not of illegal drugs, is unmeritorious.
“The repeated breach of the chain of custody rule here had cast serious uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti (body of crime). Verily, invocation of the saving clause is unwarranted.”