PDEA rues dismissal of raps vs. Chinese drug queen’s daughter

“What bothers PDEA most is the language by which the Decision was written, which clearly has no factual and legal basis,” he added.q (File Photo: Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency – PDEA/Facebook)

MANILA — The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) regrets the decision of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) junking the charges against Dianne Uy Yu, the daughter of convicted Chinese drug trafficker Yu Yuk Lai.

“PDEA strongly disagrees with the Decision and condemns the same. Based on the perusal of PDEA, the Decision is more like a pleading arguing in favor of the accused rather than a ruling that resulted from a fair, impartial, and careful trial and deliberation,” PDEA Director General Aaron Aquino said in a statement Saturday.

“What bothers PDEA most is the language by which the Decision was written, which clearly has no factual and legal basis,” he added.

The acquittal was premised on the supposed lack of probable cause in the issuance of the search warrant against Yu and the supposed irregularities made by PDEA agents in the service and implementation of the warrant, Aquino said.

He said Manila RTC Branch 49 Judge Daniel Villanueva even went on to conclude that the dangerous drugs found in the unit maintained and owned by Yu were ‘planted’ and that PDEA solicited and took PHP500,000 as bribe.

To recall, the apprehension of Yu was by virtue and authority of a search warrant issued by Acting Executive Judge Angeline Mary Quimpo-Sale of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, who was conveniently lambasted in Villanueva’s decision.

“Likewise, the operation that resulted in the apprehension of Yu was a result of valid and carefullly thought and planned casing and surveillance operations tediously made by PDEA agents, who were, also, lambasted by Judge Villanueva in the Decision and are being incriminated for supposedly planting the evidence seized from Yu and accepted a bribe from her,” Aquino said.

He added that it was never a practice of PDEA to plant drugs or evidence against anyone.

“The decision came as a surprise to PDEA as the supposed date for the promulgation of the decision was originally meant for a hearing set for the continuation of the presentation of additional or rebuttal evidence for the prosecution,” Aquino said.

He assured that the agency is now assessing and evaluating the pieces of evidence available against Yu and will pursue the necessary course of action or remedy against the decision such as filing of a petition for certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

He added that PDEA is also looking into the circumstances that led to the formation of a premature and hasty decision of the case.