Guilty, not guilty rulings on city's 2 drug cases

By Florence F. Hibionada

Two drug cases of the city were resolved with a "guilty" and "not guilty" verdicts in Branch 36, 6th RTC under Presiding Judge Victor Gelvezon.

In Criminal Case No. 04-58910, Michael Sabellano was off the hook on charges of violation of RA 9165 following a not guilty ruling. Judge Gelvezon in handing out his verdict took note of the seemingly different accounts of apprehending officers on the case. As such, he stated, the Court found that the evidence of the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt to convict Sabellano of the charge as filed leaving the Court no alternative "but uphold the presumption of innocence accorded to the accused by the Constitution."

Records obtained by The News Today showed how Sabellano was then arrested by elements of the Anti-Illegal Drug Unit of the Iloilo City Police Office (ICPO) early morning of April 1, 2004. Yet in the ensuing hearings, the officers involved in the drug operation failed to recount similarly the events as it supposedly unfolded.

Not quite as fortunate though for Reynaldo Paclibar who was charged of similar violations. Judge Gelvezon in an 11-page decision found Paclibar guilty and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment as minimum to 14 years as maximum. A fine of P300,000 was also ordered for same conviction.

Paclibar's fate stemmed from a police search when brought to the Police Precinct 3 station in Jaro last April 18, 2004. He was earlier arrested by barangay tanods in the area for a separate case of theft with a case lodged before Branch 28. Inventory of the bag he reportedly stole was made and showed assorted jewels inside. He was then turned over for police custody and as a standard operating procedure, was searched. Upon check made by SPO2 Danilo Gallego, the duty police officer at that time, found in his possession was .07 gram of Shabu, a dangerous prohibited drug inside a coin purse from the right pocket of his short pants.

"In this regard, the Court would like to emphasize that the prosecution need not prove that accused has authority to possess the subject dangerous drug because mere possession of the prohibited substance is a crime per se and the burden of proof is upoin the accused to show she (he) has a license or permit under the law to possess the prohibited (dangerous) drugs," excerpts of the ruling stated.