A shooting war of words is in the offing between the legal counsel of reputed drug lord Sherwin Bautuista and a topnotch lawyer . The drug personality who was freed on bail upon representation of lawyer Alexander Lim was the object of harsh rhetoric courtesy of bar topnotcher Victor de la Serna saying “ he smells a dead rat somewhere” upon learning that the suspect earned temporary liberty after posting half a million bail money. There was nothing irregular in granting bail to the accused drug suspect Bautista, his lawyer, Lim, said. But de la Serna was unconvinced.

Mincing no words, the topnotch lawyer said, in smelling a dead rat somewhere, he said it was possible that the PDEA or the PNP botched the buy-bust operations in exchange of something. Hinting that money changed hands, de la Serna said the possibility was strong that the lawmen carrying out the buy-bust purposely bungled the evidence when they were called to present it in court. Citing the chain of custody as not properly been established, de la Serna said it was for the court to determine not the PDEA men who handled the bungled operations which formed the basis of Presiding Judge Pablo Magdoza of Regional Trial Court Branch 48 to order the grant of Bautista’s bail application,. But according to Bautista’s legal counsel, releasing Bautista on bail is allowed under the law, if circumstances show and as determined by the court, that the evidence of guilt of the accused is not strong.

. The accused lawyer’s explanation was made as clarification, prompted by “erroneous, misleading and sweeping statements” regarding the release of Bautista made by dela Serna insinuating anomaly in allowing the suspect to post a bail of P500,000 for his temporary release, two days before Christmas. The statements, according to Lim, put prosecutors, judges and the judiciary in a bad light. Lim said that the courts, as a matter of practice, could grant bail without prejudice to the pending case filed against the accused that would still undergo trial. “In fact, Judge Pablo Magdoza of RTC Branch 48 set several days of hearings on the Petition for Bail from Nov. 9, 11, 16, 23 and 25, 2011 and December 2, 7, 9 and 14, 2011. The judge further extended the hearings to Dec 16 and 21, 2011 in order to give the prosecution enough time to present evidence,” Lim said. Cautious to discuss details of the case since it is already in court, Lim added that we should not be quick in passing judgments against our judicial system as it might erode the trust and confidence of our people.

QUESTIONABLE ARREST

Bautista’s arrest was strongly questioned as Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) officers who brought Bautista to their office in the city arrived without the seized shabu (metamphetamine hydrochloride) and the marked money used in the alleged buy-bust operation. It may be recalled that a radio reporter and other media personnel covering the operation declared that the inventory of seized items and marked money of the supposed buy-bust operation, should have been done where the operation happened. However, the mediamen commented that this was not done by the arresting agents. According to Manolito Maestrado, a common witness to both prosecution and defense who testified in court, three mediamen, Danny Reyes (DyRD), Rey Tutas (DyRD) and Dave Responte (DyTR) were requested by PDEA to sign the Certificate of Inventory but they refused to do so because they did not see the items or “shabu” which were subject of the inventory.

Bautista was nabbed at around 4 p.m. last September 8, 2011 when he was about to ride his motorcycle at a motocross event in Loon town. The PDEA agents allegedly pressed Bautista down with the butts of their long arms even when he already dropped to the ground. The arrest was without any warrant of arrest and/or search warrant as the operatives claimed they earlier conducted a buy-bust against the suspect. However, according to Atty. Lim, the arresting officers could have easily swooped down on Bautista right then and there as they were backed-up by some 40 elements of the Philippine Army. “Their account of the operation is contrary to human experience, while we have found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the PDEA agents themselves,” the defense lawyer added. According to Lim, the drug sting operation was highly questionable and did not follow due process. “That’s why we filed several motions and a petition for bail because we believe Bautista was illegally arrested,” he stressed.

REVENGE?

In his 5-page Order, Judge Magdoza found the testimony of Intelligence Officer 1 Joebane Labajo apparently unreliable and not credible. Labajo’s answers to questions propounded to him by both the prosecution and defense counsel, were highlighted by these – “I do not know” or “I could not recall” or “I believe the best person to answer that is Deputy Director Levi Ortiz.” Labajo was also contradicted by Manolito Maestrado of DyRD, the media representative who signed in the Certificate of Inventory. Maestrado testified that he arrived at the PDEA Office in Tagbilaran City only at 8:30 o’clock in the evening. There seems to be a mystery involved in the two big packs of suspected ”shabu” which Labajo alleged to be in his possession. The two packs were not shown to three other media who arrived earlier than Maestrado. PDEA deputy director Ortiz, designated team leader, also did not corroborate the testimony of IO1 Labajo on important points. He told the court he had no personal knowledge of the actual alleged buy-bust operation because he was farther away from the alleged poseur buyer. He was not also present during the alleged inventory of said items because he was outside the PDEA office preoccupied by media interviews.

On the other hand, prosecution witness PO3 Rolex Tamarra and defense witness Louie Varquez corroborated the testimony of accused Bautista. Tamarra confirmed that Bautista was an asset of the Police and acted as poseur buyer in a buy-bust operation in Tagbilaran City in August 2011 which led to the arrest of a PDEA agent identified as IO1 Steven Valles, now detained without bail. The witness believed that the arrest of Bautista, in relation to the instant case, is a “revenge” on the part of PDEA. Defense lawyer Lim said that while he believes the evidence against his client is weak, the Court Order allowing Bautista to post bail does not mean a certain dismissal of the case. “The merits of the case are best left to the sound judgment of the courts,” Atty. Lim said.