{"id":180773,"date":"2018-09-10T02:59:09","date_gmt":"2018-09-10T06:59:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=180773"},"modified":"2018-09-10T02:59:09","modified_gmt":"2018-09-10T06:59:09","slug":"ca-affirms-raps-vs-chinese-bizman-p6-4-b-shabu-haul","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2018\/09\/10\/ca-affirms-raps-vs-chinese-bizman-p6-4-b-shabu-haul\/","title":{"rendered":"CA affirms raps vs. Chinese bizman in P6.4-B shabu haul"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
The appellate court said the Manila RTC order already showed \u201cthe reason for the course of action it had taken, which were thoroughly and sufficiently discussed therein.\u201d (File Photo By Ramon FVelasquez\/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0— The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the petition filed by Chinese businessman Chen Julong, alias Richard Tan, seeking to junk the charges against him in connection with the PHP6.4-billion illegal drugs shipment that slipped past the Bureau of Customs (BOC) last year.<\/p>\n

In a 17-page decision dated Aug. 31, penned by Associate Justice Ramon Garcia and concurred by Associate Justices Eduardo Peralta and Geraldine Fiel Macaraig, the CA\u2019s 11th Division upheld the Feb. 22, 2018 order of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46, which denied Chen\u2019s motion to quash the charge of drug importation under Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.<\/p>\n

The CA ruled that it finds \u201cno compelling reason to reverse or modify the assailed orders of the court a quo (Manila RTC Branch 46).\u201d<\/p>\n

The CA added that Chen did not file a motion for reconsideration before the Manila RTC.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt the onset, it must be pointed out that the instant petition for certiorari merits an outright dismissal for the failure of the petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Order dated Feb. 22, 2018 before the court a quo,\u201d the appellate court ruled.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe rule is well-stated that the failure to file a motion for reconsideration before resort to the special civil action for certiorari is a fatal infirmity. Such motion is indispensable in order to afford the tribunal, board or office, or in this case, the court a quo, to pass upon and correct its mistakes if there is any,\u201d it added.<\/p>\n

The appellate court said the Manila RTC order already showed \u201cthe reason for the course of action it had taken, which were thoroughly and sufficiently discussed therein.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThere was no hint of whimsicality, no gross and patent abuse of discretion as would amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law,\u201d the CA said.<\/p>\n

\u201cInstead, it appears that public respondent judge had painstakingly went over the facts and the law upon which her ruling was based upon,\u201d it added.<\/p>\n

The CA disagreed with Chen who argued that Manila RTC should have dismissed the case due to forum shopping considering that the Valenzuela RTC Branch 171 has already dismissed the same charge prior being refiled at the Manila RTC.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn any case, petitioner miserably failed to substantiate his allegation that forum shopping is extant in the instant case,\u201d the appellate court ruled.<\/p>\n

The CA pointed out that \u201cwhen the RTC, Branch 171, Valenzuela dismissed the first information for want of jurisdiction, it was only proper for the prosecution to refile the same with the court which actually has jurisdiction thereof, which in this case is the court a quo.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cForum shopping is the act of any party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking another, and possibly favorable opinion forum other than appeal or special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court might look with favor upon the party,\u201d it cited.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhere the elements of litis pendentia are not present or where a final judgment in one case will not amount to res judicata in the other there is no forum shopping,\u201d it explained.<\/p>\n

Litis pendentia refers to a situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action. While, res judicata is a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.<\/p>\n

\u201cPetitioner further faults the prosecution\u2019s and the court a quo\u2019s finding of probable cause against him considering that he has no prior knowledge or information with regard to the shipment of dangerous drugs; that it was he who reported the same to authorities,. These, however, are indubitably evidentiary in nature that are best litigated in a full-blown trial on the merits,\u201d the CA said.<\/p>\n

The CA added that \u201can order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and therefore not appealable, nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari.\u201d<\/p>\n

The case stemmed from the Bureau of Customs\u2019 (BOC) discovery of the shabu shipment at the Hong Fei Logistics warehouse in Valenzuela City on May 26, 2017 based on a tip from the Anti-Smuggling Bureau of the China Customs.<\/p>\n

The 604-kg. \u201cshabu\u201d (crystal meth) shipment is one of the biggest hauls of smuggled drugs in the country, and was the subject of a congressional probe that also led to the resignation of former BOC Commissioner Nicanor Faeldon.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0— The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the petition filed by Chinese businessman Chen Julong, alias Richard Tan, seeking to …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":166734,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180773","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180773","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180773"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180773\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/166734"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180773"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180773"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180773"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}