THE RECENT acquittal of Rolan “Kerwin” Espinosa highlights the haphazard filing of criminal cases to suit the prevailing sentiment of the times.
In her decision last week, Judge Veronica Igot of the Makati regional trial court acquitted Espinosa and his driver-bodyguard Marcelo Adorco who were alleged to have conspired with each other to commit illegal drug trading at the parking lot of the Cash and Carry mall in February 2013.
The crime was supposedly committed in early 2013 yet the charge was formally filed only in 2018, or five years later, when Rodrigo Duterte was already President and riding high on his vaunted war on drugs.
***
What evidence did the prosecution present to prove that the accused committed the offense being imputed to them?
The prosecutors presented three witnesses – all of them police officers. Not one of these witnesses could testify based on personal knowledge. What they did was assemble a case file based mainly on the statements of Adorco.
Adorco was initially presented as a state witness. But the prosecution, for one reason or another, withdrew that presentation.
All that was left in evidence were the hearsay testimony of these police officers who were not eyewitness to the crime allegedly committed by Espinosa and his cohorts.
***
The judge had no choice but to acquit the accused. Espinosa did not even have to present evidence in his defense.
The acquittal was rendered based on demurrer to evidence. It is that stage in criminal procedure where the accused is acquitted even without them presenting evidence because the evidence presented by the people is not sufficient to convict them.
While the police officers testified on information extracted from Adorco, those testimonies have no evidentiary value because they constitute hearsay evidence.
It is hearsay because the court may not rely on what Adorco merely relayed to the police.
***
The police could only say that they did conduct an investigation. They could not testify regarding the illegal drug trading allegedly committed in Makati because they were not there when it happened.
Adorco should have been presented in court to affirm his statements to the police. But he was not. Had he affirmed his statement the lawyers for the other accused in that case should have been given the chance to cross-examine him.
The judge was thus constrained to rule that those affidavits are hearsay and devoid of probative value.
***
A panel of prosecutors from the Department of Justice had earlier dismissed this case due to “weak evidence.”
The Criminal Investigation and Detection Group named Adorco as its sole witness. Adorco claimed to be close to Kerwin whom he allegedly met in prison sometime in 2011. He also said that he had a notebook containing a list of people who were customers or co-conspirators of the Espinosas in the illegal drug business.
The DOJ panel however noted several inconsistencies that made Adorco’s narration largely unreliable.
***
The Duterte administration was not to be deterred. Another panel was created to resolve the motion for reconsideration of the police. This time, probable cause was found to exist, and the case was brought to court.
The reason why Adorco was withdrawn as a state witness is quite obvious now. His testimony would have been shred to bits by the defense. And who knows what other matters he may have revealed had he been subjected to the crucible of cross-examination./PN
