The Makati City regional trial court (RTC) has dismissed the drugs charges filed against alleged drug lord Rolan “Kerwin” E. Espinosa and three co-accused even before the presentation of their evidence in court.

In an order dated last Dec. 17, RTC Judge Gina M. Bibat Palamos granted the demurer to evidence filed by Espinosa, Wu Tuan Huan alias Peter Co, Lovely A. Impal, and Marcelo L. Adorco.

A demurrer to evidence is filed by an accused in a criminal case to dismiss the charges on allegation that the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient or weak and would not result in conviction.

If granted by the court, the charges are dismissed and the dismissal is tantamount to an acquittal. If denied, the trial would resume for the presentation of the evidence by the accused.

“Accordingly, for failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence to overturn the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the herein accused, the Information in the above-entitled case is hereby dismissed,” Judge Palamos ruled.

Espinosa, Co, Adorco and Impal were charged with violations of Section 26(b), in relation to Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Penalized under Section 26(b) and Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are the “sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals.”

The prosecution claimed that in 2013, the accused “knowingly, willfully and intentionally agree to commit illegal trafficking or trafficking of dangerous drugs, with the use of electronic devices or acting as a broker in such transactions for money or any other consideration... in Makati City... without authority of law, did trade, dispose, deliver and distribute or transport twenty (20) kilograms of Methamphetamine hydrochloride or ‘shabu,’ dangerous drugs.”

Judge Palamos pointed out in her order that “the prosecution heavily relied on the testimony of Adorco.”

“However, the court found and accordingly declared Adorco’s sworn statements as inadmissible in evidence because the same was extracted from him by the police officers in violation of his rights under custodial investigation,” the judge said.

The judge said that Adorco and the police investigator who interviewed him both admitted that no counsel was present when Adorco was interviewed by police on Aug. 3, 2016.

“Worse, Adorco was led to believe that his narration will be used only against Espinosa,” the judge said.

“Adorco was not even informed that he would also be included as an accused in the instant case, and that his narration will be used against him,” she added.

Thus, she said that Adorco’s statement, aside from the fact that he became a witness against himself, cannot be presented in evidence “even if the confession contains a grain of truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel ..., regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.”

The judge also cited “various lapses committed by the investigating officers in the preparation of the affidavits.”

The judge’s order also stated that the prosecution “failed to adduce sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that the Espinosa Group conspired to commit illegal trade or illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs.”

The order also stated:

“Regrettable, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the alleged conspiracy between the Espinosa Group considering that Adorco’s testimony which is the very foundation of the prosecution’s case against them is neither clear, categorical, consistent, nor credible.

Worse, Adorco, on cross-examination, admitted that his testimonies are plagued with errors and inconsistencies because of the police officers who prepared said statements. Worst, in a Kontra Salaysay dated Aug. 11, 2020, Adorco recanted his testimonies.

“Without Adorco’s testimonies, the prosecution’s case against the Espinosa Group necessarily crumbles.”