*By Jonathan Hicap and Patrick Garcia

* A Makati court has acquitted Rolan “Kerwin” Espinosa and co-accused Marcelo Adorco of the crime of illegal trafficking and trading of shabu after the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence. “Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the Demurrer to Evidence filed by both accused are hereby granted. Accordingly, Rolan E. Espinosa and Marcelo L. Adorco are hereby acquitted of the offense charged on reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately released from detention unless they are confined for any other lawful cause,” Presiding Judge Veronica Tongio-Igot of the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 65 ruled in a 21-page decision dated June 6.
The case charged that on June 7, 2015, Espinosa, Adorco, Peter Go Lim and Ruel Malindangan, “willfully and intentionally agree to commit illegal trading 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, and consequently at the parking area of Cash and Carry Mall, South Super Highway, corner Filmore and Emilia Streets, Barangay Palanan, Makati City, Philippines,and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, without authority of law, did trade, dispene, deliver, distribute or transport fifty (50) kilograms Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or ‘shabu,‘ a dangerous drug.” During arraignment on Aug. 28, 2018, Espinosa and Adorco pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution rested its case, the two accused filed demurrer to evidence in March and April this year. In demurrer to evidence, the court stated that “the accused challenges the insufficiency of the entire evidence of the prosecution and asserts that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” In his demurrer to evidence, Espinosa said the case should be dismissed as “the sworn statements of Adorco are inadmissible in evidence for failure to comply with the rights of the accused under custodial investigation” and “are hearsay not having been confirmed before the court.” He also said the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Senior Master Sgt. Benjamin Lamiseria and Col. Richard Verceles “have no probative value since they have no personal knowledge of the facts constituting the offense charged.” “Lastly, the Senate transcript of stenographic notes dated 23 November 2016 and 5 December 2016 are inadmissible in evidence in judicial proceedings,” according to the demurrer to evidence. The court decision stated that “considering that granting a demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal, it must contain what is fundamental in every demurrer, it must make a reference to the insufficiency of the evidence on record. Thus, the interests of justice would be best served if a demurrer is granted only when clearly warranted.” It ruled that “the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the elements of conspiracy to commit illegal trading of dangerous drugs under Section 26 (b), in relation to Section 5 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640.” “In fine, the prosecution must prove that the accused agreed to deliver, dispense, trade, transport, or distribute, dangerous drugs or acted as a broker or brought together the buyer and seller of illegal drugs in any of these transactions by using electronic devices such as but not limited to, text messages, e-mail, mobile or landlines, two-way radios, internet, instant messengers and chat rooms,” the court said. It decided that “in this case, the evidence of the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the offense to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.” “The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on the commission of the alleged conspiracy to commit illegal trading of dangerous drugs have no probative value for being hearsay,” it added. According to the court, “Similarly, accused Espinosa’s Extra-Judicial Confession during the Senate Hearings is Inadmissible for failure of the Prosecution to show that it was made Voluntarily.” “When the accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,” the court said. It added, “In the instant case, as the prosecution failed to adduce evidence sufficient to overcome the burden of proving the guilt of both accused beyond reasonable doubt, then the Demurrer to Evidence ought to be granted.”