The Makati City Regional Trial Court has denied for lack of merit the motion for partial reconsideration filed by the prosecution in the Virac shabu lab case involving for Atty. Augusto Eric C. Isidoro.
In an order issued Sept. 4, 2024, RTC Branch 63 Presiding Judge Jacob M. Montesa said the grounds and arguments raised in the motion were judiciously passed upon in the assailed Joint Decision issued by the Court on Aug. 2 that cleared the former National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) director of all charges.
“There is no valid issue and new arguments that would warrant reconsideration of the same,” the Court stated in its brief order.
It may be recalled that in a 105-page joint decision, Judge Montesa pronounced Atty. Isidoro not guilty of violation of Section 26 (d), Article II of Republic Act 9165, as amended, for conspiracy to manufacture dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals.
His co-accused, Lorenco Flores Piñera II, also known as Lawrence and/or Kidot, was found guilty of violation of Section 11 of the same law for possession of 12.534 kilograms of white crystalline substance, 9.975 kilograms of brownish liquid with crystals, and 200 milliliters of red liquid, all of which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride of shabu.
He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
In a separate case for violation of Sec. 26 (d) for possession of 359.75 kilograms of ephedrine, Piñera was likewise convicted and sentenced to another life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
Two weeks after, the prosecution sought reconsideration of the ruling, arguing that the Court erred in ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy charge against accused Isidoro and Piñera.
Contrary to the RTC’s finding that the charge against the lawyer was based solely on witness Ernesto Tabor Jr.’s testimony, the motion stated that the charge was based on several circumstances such as the fact that the lawyer’s wife leased the property where the clandestine laboratory was constructed and sub-leased the same to co-accused Jayson Uy.
It also claimed that Tabor’s testimony was sufficient to establish Isidoro’s criminal liability and that there was no inconsistency in the material points of his testimony.
The prosecution also contended that considering the Court’s finding that Piñera was an occupant of the warehouse, his participation in the manufacture of dangerous drugs cannot be denied.
Lastly, it also claimed that the presentation of rebuttal evidence being discretionary, its failure to present the same should not be taken against the prosecution.
In resolving the deny the motion for partial reconsideration, the Court reiterated its ruling in the Joint Decision wherein while it initially found the prosecution evidence to be strong in ruling against the grant of the accused’s bail, the prosecution failed to present evidence to corroborate Tabor’s allegations when the case was heard.