Julian Ongpin cleared of drug charges by La Union court

The Regional Trial Court in San Fernando, La Union has dismissed the case for possession of illegal drugs filed against Julian Ongpin, son of businessman Roberto Ongpin.

In a resolution, the court dismissed the case after finding a lack of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest against Ongpin in view of the utter non-compliance of the requirements of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

“Wherefore, premises considered, after an independent assessment of the evidence on record… and supporting evidence, the Court is constrained to dismiss Criminal Case No. 14154,” the order read.

On October 18, the DOJ indicted Julian Ongpin for possession of dangerous drugs.

The indictment stemmed from the complaint filed by the Philippine National Police in connection with the 12 grams of cocaine found in Ongpin’s room in a beach resort in La Union where artist Bree Jonson was found dead in September.

Both Ongpin and Jonson tested positive for cocaine.

According to the court, no witnesses, representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), or public officials were secured.

The Court also stressed that Ongpin was not inside the room at the time the drugs were discovered.

“It is for this reason that a stricter application of Sec. 21 RA 9165 should have been observed, in order to remove any doubt as to the source of the alleged discovered drugs,” it said.

Meanwhile, the court said that the inventory of evidence submitted by authorities was not signed by Joselito Niebres, the lone civilian witness.

“He merely stated that he saw the apprehending officers collect the alleged illegal drugs. Plainly, the claimed presence of Niebres cannot be countenanced as substantial compliance in this case,” it said.

The Court said the apprehending officers showed no effort to clearly state a justifiable ground in their affidavit as well as detail the steps taken to preserve the integrity of the seized item.

Meanwhile, it said that some of the plastic sachets containing white powder substance were not marked at the time of its inventory.

“It could not, therefore, be determined how the unmarked drugs were handled upon confiscation. Evidently, the alteration of the seized items was a possibility absent their immediate marking thereof,” it said.

“Worse, the prosecution never tried to offer any explanation of the absence of the required individual markings on the seized plastic sachets in the inventory form. This singular instance of noncompliance alone jeopardized the chain of custody,” it added.—LDF, GMA News