The Court of Appeals has affirmed the life sentences meted out on three Indonesians convicted of drug trafficking by a Philippine lower court six years ago.
In 2004, The Indonesians were caught in possession of almost 10 kilograms of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. A year later, the Pasay City Regional Trial Court found them guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced them to life imprisonment, with a fine of P500,000 each.
In a 23-page ruling, the Court of Appeals brushed aside the arguments of the three foreigners — Herawaty Ng, Maimum Wagimin, and Khoe Hong Gek — who claimed they did not know that they were carrying illegal drugs.
The CA said the suspects' excuse "cannot constitute a valid defense." It added that mere possession of drugs "per se is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act" of the Philippines.
The CA then said it saw no reason to overturn the Pasay City Regional Trial Court's guilty verdict handed down on the three Indonesians in 2005.
“Accordingly, this Court finds no valid or cogent reason to amend, much less, reversed the appealed decision, the same being in accord with the facts, the law and jurisprudence," said the appellate court.
The three Indonesians arrived in the Philippines from Hong Kong in September 2004. An airport x-ray machine detected a crystalline substance in the Indonesians' suitcases.
An inspection conducted by airport security personnel yielded 24 plastic containers containing 9.973 kilograms of shabu. Drug trafficking charges were subsequently slapped on the three Indonesians before the Pasay court.
In October 2005, the lower court ruled that the three foreigners were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, or Republic Act No. 9165. The suspects received a sentence of life imprisonment and a penalty of P500,000 each.
The drug suspects later appealled the Pasay RTC's ruling, saying that the lower court should not have admitted as evidence the sachets of shabu because these were confiscated without a valid warrant from the court.
They added they did not receive a fair trial because their interpreter was not able to translate well the court proceedings.
The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that the trial court did not have to issue a warrant when a person gives his consent to have his belongings inspected.
“He or she, in effect, waives his or her right to otherwise have a warrant justify the invasion of his or her liberty and privacy," the CA ruled. (report from Sophia Dedace/RSJ, GMA News)
