The man close associates call as ‘Boy Haros' is out on a P200,000 bail bond after he was arrested for drug possession resulting from a raid early morning Thursday in his posh residence along J. Borja St., this city. Agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency based in Cebu City swooped down on the residence of prominent businessman Eduardo Enerio y Flores alias Boy Haros and yielded several sachets of prohibited drugs believed to be shabu. The biggest quantity in the drug haul was one piece large sized transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance believed to be shabu weighing more or less three grams. The drug personality must have been a high value target that no less than PDEA Regional Director Randy Pedroso supervised the raid. The PDEA came to know about Enerio's alleged drug business when it conducted a buy-test operation on December 8, 2009 involving a civilian asset. The asset allegedly bought P2,000 worth of shabu from Enerio himself on said date and at the house he occupies along J. Borja St. The test-buy formed the basis of the application of the search warrant applied by Intelligence Agent 3 Yogi Felimon Ruiz of the PDEA. This was corroborated by the Deposition of Witnesses I0I Villegas and I0I Cuayson as affiants. According to the PDEA spot report, aside from the prohibited substance confiscated in the possession of Enerio, other drug paraphernalia, a 9 mm pistol with several magazines of ammunitions and P20,000 were also recovered from the second floor of the Honeybee Building . Honeybee is the name of Enerio three-storey palatial home.
But lawyer Alexander Lim, one of Enerio's legal counsels whose intervention was sought by his client during the raid, confirmed that there was no illegal drugs confiscated in the operations. This gave rise to his advice to Enerio not to sign anything regarding an inventory of the supposed items seized in the raid. In a radio interview with Enerio while the raid was going on, the suspect said the drugs supposedly recovered in his possession “were planted”. The raid was carried out on the strength of a search warrant issued by Executive Judge Fernando Fuentes III. Aside from Director Pedroso, the members of the raiding party were composed of IA 3 Ruiz as team leader; Intelligence Officer 2 Baby Rallos, I02 Jason Cabatana, I0I Jeanette Reyes, John Carlo Daquiado, I0I Jonar Cayson and I0I Brian Paul Villegas. The P200,000 bond for the suspect's temporary liberty was in the form of a surety bond issued by the Plaridel Surety and Insurance Co. Upon posting the surety bond yesterday, Enerio was released from PDEA custody. But in a check with Enerio, he said he was in the hospital when he posted bail. The drug case was the second instance where Enerio has a close brush with the law. Enerio, 57, was charged with murder in the killing of one Jack Lord Decasa of Calvario, Loay town in another incident at his residence on Nov. 17, 2009 . The victim was said to be a former security guard of Brewpoint Coffee Club, a joint located just across Enerio's residence. The murder case was filed by the young Decasa's father, Jacinto. The murder is pending preliminary investigation by Investigating Prosecutor Conrado Supremo.
SEARCH WARRANT QUESTIONED
But in an Urgent Motion to Quash Search Warrant and or to Suppress Evidence Obtained Thereby, lawyer Aleck Frances Lim of the Trabajo-Lim Law Office and another Enerio legal counsel, questioned the legality of the search warrant issued by Executive Judge Fuentes. In moving for the quashal of the search warrant, Lim cited Rule 126, Sec. 14 of the Revised Rules of Court. Specifically, Lim said no less than Section 2, Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution expressly mandated that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”. Lim added that to effect this provision, he cited Sections 4 and 5, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court that provide:
“Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant.—A search warrant shall not be issued except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. Sec. 5. Examination of complainant; record.—The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted.” In questioning the legality of the search warrant, Lim said the judge, with due respect, failed to comply with the requirement that the issuing magistrate must have personally examined in the form of searching questions and answers, the applicant and his witnesses and take down their written depositions.
The legal counsel also cited the particular place to be searched saying in the case of the warrant issued by the judge to the PDEA, it stated “the place of his residence and its premises at J. Borja St. , Tagbilaran City ”. According to the lawyer, the description of the place to be searched did not even state the street number, name of the building and unit number of respondent's residence. Clearly, the lawyer said, the warrant was in gross violation of the Constitution and Rule 126, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. As a result of the warrant which did not particularly describe the place to be searched, the lawyer said, the members of the raiding team illegally searched the first floor/level which was not even the residence of the respondent, as his residence is on the second floor of the building.
|
