THE Office of the City Prosecutor in Makati has junked for lack of evidence the obstruction of justice and constructive possession of illegal drugs filed against three lawyers who allegedly interfered in the police operation on their client’s establishment suspected of being a drug den.
In a 14-page resolution, Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Romel Odronia stated that the presence of respondent-lawyers Lenie Rocel Elmido Rocha, Jan Vincent Sambrano Soliven and Romulo Bernard Bustamante Alarkon at the Times Bar during the police raid “was legally justified,” considering that they were legal counsels of Burton Joseph Server III, one of the owners of the said establishment.
This was contrary to the claim of the complainant, who are members of the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Makati City Police Station, that the three went inside the bar without any client to represent and interfered in the implementation of a search warrant by threatening and questioning them at every stage, which resulted in the obstruction and delay of the implementation of the warrant.
The complainants also claimed that the lawyers took pictures and video footages, searched, touched and held evidence, which might have contaminated them, thus, holding them liable for violation of Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code (resistance and disobedience), violation of City Ordinance No. 96-298 (unlawful for unauthorized person to cross a police line) and Section 11 Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act on constructive possession of drugs.
The three lawyers were subjected to a warrantless arrest by authorities, drawing criticisms from various legal groups.
The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) denounced the warrantless arrest of the three lawyers, saying that it “personifies the government’s arrogance, ignorance and disregard of law” in the pursuit of its war against drugs policy.
They were eventually ordered released by the city prosecutor pending further investigation.
“It must be remembered that respondents were in Times Bar as legal counsel[s] of server. Thus, it is their duty to do anything and everything to protect and establish the rights of their client so long that it does not constitute a violation of the law,” the resolution read.
“Notably, the evidence is barren of any showing that the taking of pictures and video footages interfered, hampered or obstructed in any way in the proper implementation of the search warrant of that it affected in anyway the integrity of the evidence seized,” it added.
The city prosecutor also noted that a review of the video footages of the confrontation between the complainants and the respondents clearly showed that the lawyers informed authorities that they were there as legal counsel of server.
“Also we find it illogical and inconsistent with reason and human experience that respondents who are all lawyers would risk their profession and go to Times Bar where a search warrant was being implemented without any client to represent. The claim of complainants that they [the lawyers] might [had] gone to the establishment to retrieve something, being a pure speculation and conjecture, deserves no credence,” the resolution read.
Likewise, the city prosecutor pointed out that the complainants failed to substantiate their claim that the three layers interfered in the performance of their duty and compromised the evidence gathered at the bar.
In fact, the city prosecutor said the claim of the complainants became more questionable after evidence showed that when the lawyers arrived at the bar, the evidence gathered had already been inventoried and clearly in the possession and control of the raiding policemen.
The city prosecutor also branded as “ludicrous and farcical” the claim of the complainants that the lawyers have constructive possession of the illegal drugs.
Odronia explained that in order for the accusations to hold, the complainants should be able to establish that the drugs found in the bar were under the control of the lawyers or that they have right to exercise dominion and control over the place where the drugs were found.
“The one-time presence of respondents in the premises of Times Bar hardly qualify as proof of dominion and control over the place and of the drugs recovered therein, especially so considering that it has been sufficiently established by way of evidence that their presence therein was to serve as legal counsel of server who is one of the owners and among the named respondents in the search warrant,” the resolution read.
Records showed the police implemented a search warrant issued by Makati Regional Trial Court Executive Judge Elmo Alameda at the Times Bar in Manila Bar on Makati Avenue last August.
The raid yielded ecstasy drugs valued at P142,500 and some 18 sachets of cocaine valued at P1.57 million.