THE Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed on Thursday the life sentences handed down in 2009 against the operator of a shabu flea market by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasig City.
Amin Imam Boratong and his wife were both convicted by the RTC in Pasig City Branch 154 Presiding Judge Abraham Borreta on June 30, 2009, for maintaining a drug den and possession of illegal drugs.
Aside from life imprisonment, the trial court also ordered them to jointly pay a fine in the amount of P11 million.
Boratong was one of the 19 inmates recently transferred from the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City to the National Bureau of Investigation headquarters in Manila, following a government crackdown on the illegal activities inside the penitentiary, including drug trafficking.
Boratong has questioned the legality of his transfer before the Supreme Court.
In a 38-page decision penned by Associate Justice Stephen Cruz, the CA’s Eight Division also upheld the orders issued by the RTC in Pasig City directing the continuation of the forfeiture proceedings of all the assets and properties of Boratong that were illegally acquired.
The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) has previously traced 19 bank accounts in the name of Boratong.
Further examination of the accounts showed that the bank deposits of Boratong from December 1 to February 2006 amounted to P907.4 million.
In addition to the bank accounts, the AMLC was also able to discover real properties belonging to Boratong such as a mansion in Rainwood Village, Cainta, and in Gardenia Street, Greenwoods Subdivision. The AMLC also uncovered Boratong also owns a rice mill in Bulacan.
“Regrettably for accused-appellants, Sheryl Molera Boratong and Amin Imam Boratong, this Court failed to identfy any error committed by the court a quo, both in the appreciation of the evidence presented before it and in the conclusion it arrived at,” the CA declared.
The CA stressed the evidence of the prosecution are sufficient to establish that the two maintained the so-called shabu tiangge along F. Soriano Street Barangay Palatiw, Pasig City.
“The foregoing testimonies clearly show how the dangerous drugs were used and sold in the said place. Pertinently, the trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and trustworthy,” it ruled.
The CA did not give weight to the claim of Boratong and his wife that their arrest were illegal since the search warrant issued against them were improperly served. They noted that the search warrant did not reflect their names and that it did not describe the place to be searched.
The appellate court, however, explained that Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure does not require that search warrants name the person who occupies the described premises.
Furthermore, the CA held the failure to name the owner or occupant of such property in the affidavit and search warrant does not invalidate the warrant.
“The rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched,” the CA ruled.
The CA also ruled that the accused-appellants’ defense that they were framed-up is considered weak and has been viewed by courts against the accused since it can easily be concocted.
“Negative in their nature, bare denials and accusations of frame-up cannot, as a rule, prevail over the affirmative testimony of truthful witnesses,” the CA added.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Nina Antonio Valenzuela.