By Jennifer P. Rendon
Five persons, including two call center agents and a village watchman (tanod), were arrested in an anti-narcotics operation afternoon of March 28, 2022 in Molo, Iloilo City.
The suspects were identified as Jefferson Maala, 29, a call center agent from Barangay Dawis, Dingle, Iloilo; James Lorenz Emperado, 33, a barangay tanod of Dalid, Calinog, Iloilo; Adrian Kim Balasa, 19, of Barangay South San Jose, Molo, Iloilo City; Sim Kyle Marfil, 25, of Barangay PHHC Block 17, Mandurriao, Iloilo City; and Valerey Valencia, 28, a call center agent from Barangay Sta. Cruz, Arevalo, Iloilo City.
Members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)-Iloilo Provincial Office, together with the Seaport & Airport Interdiction Units, PDEA-Aklan and Iloilo City, and Police Station 4 (ICPS-4), conducted the operation around 1:30 p.m. Monday at Jardeleza Subdivision, Zone 2, Barangay San Juan, Molo.
Maala was the subject of the bust.
Johnny Boy Ibañez, PDEA-Iloilo provincial officer, said the area where the suspects were arrested is considered a drug den as it was the site for the sale and use of illegal drugs.
Live-in partners Maala and Valencia rented the place.
Ibañez said Maala dealt with customers and suppliers via online mode.
The illegal drugs were then sent through courier service. The last supply sent to him came from Cavite.
There were also transactions that emanated from Cebu and Pampanga.
Meanwhile, Ibañez said it was possible that the three other suspects were holding pot session during the operation.
Anti-narcotics operatives also seized several sachets of suspected shabu weighing 80 grams, various drug paraphernalia, and buy bust money.
Ibañez said the confiscated drugs weighed around 80 grams and has a standard value of P544,000.
Valencia would be charged for violation of Section 6, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) while Maala will be charged for violation of Sections 5, 6, 11, and 12, Article II of RA 9165.
Meanwhile, Balasa and Emperado would be charged for violation of Section 26 in relation to Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
On the other hand, Marfil would be charged for visiting a suspected drug den.
