"x x x.
High court sets purge of weak drug cases
September 30, 2018 at 10:30 pm
To weed out courts’ docket of weak drug cases, the Supreme Court has adopted a mandatory policy for apprehending officers, investigating prosecutors, and courts in the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs in drug-related cases.
In an en banc 18-page decision, the high court through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta laid down fundamental rules governing the arrest and proper handling of evidence in drug-related cases in order to ensure conviction and not dismissal on technicality.
The SC stressed that “ to weed out early on from the courts’ already congested docket any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases,” the following should be enforced as a mandatory policy in connection with arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of Republic Act 9165 or Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR);
2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items;
3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements/affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause; and
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.
The high tribunal emphasized the importance of the procedure laid down in Section 21(1) of RA 9165, which mandates the conduct of a physical inventory of the seized items and taking of photos of the same by the apprehending team “in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized…with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”
The SC pointed out that the said provision also directs that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served, or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures.
The provision likewise states that noncompliance with the said requirements “under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.”
“Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven,” the SC said.
With this mandatory policy in the chain of custody rule in drug cases, the SC said that copies of its decision be furnished to the Secretary of the Department of Justice, as well as to the Head/Chief of the National Prosecution Service, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Public Attorney’s Office, the Philippine National Police, the PDEA, the National Bureau of Investigation, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and guidance.
The Office of the Court Administrator was also directed to disseminate copies of the decision to all trial courts, including the Court of Appeals.
The SC adopted this new mandatory policy after it resolved to reverse and set aside the February 23, 2017 decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the September 24, 2013 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25, finding accused-appellant Romy Lim guilty of violating Sections 11 and 5, respectively, of Article II of RA 9165.
It also ordered the acquittal of Lim based on reasonable doubt and his immediate release from detention, unless he was being lawfully held for another cause.
The SC held that Lim should be acquitted on reasonable doubt, citing the absence of an elected public official and representatives of the DOJ and the media to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items was evident.
“In fact, their signatures do not appear in the Inventory Receipt,” the SC noted.
The SC also found out that one of the apprehending officers from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency had testified that no members of the media and barangay officials arrived at the crime scene and that no inventory was made in the PDEA office.
The SC also said that the prosecution failed to explain why they did not secure the presence of a representative from the DOJ, and that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to establish the details of an earnest effort to coordinate with and secure presence of the required witnesses.
In an en banc 18-page decision, the high court through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta laid down fundamental rules governing the arrest and proper handling of evidence in drug-related cases in order to ensure conviction and not dismissal on technicality.
The SC stressed that “ to weed out early on from the courts’ already congested docket any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases,” the following should be enforced as a mandatory policy in connection with arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of Republic Act 9165 or Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR);
2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items;
3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements/affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause; and
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.
The high tribunal emphasized the importance of the procedure laid down in Section 21(1) of RA 9165, which mandates the conduct of a physical inventory of the seized items and taking of photos of the same by the apprehending team “in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized…with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”
The SC pointed out that the said provision also directs that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served, or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures.
The provision likewise states that noncompliance with the said requirements “under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.”
“Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven,” the SC said.
With this mandatory policy in the chain of custody rule in drug cases, the SC said that copies of its decision be furnished to the Secretary of the Department of Justice, as well as to the Head/Chief of the National Prosecution Service, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Public Attorney’s Office, the Philippine National Police, the PDEA, the National Bureau of Investigation, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and guidance.
The Office of the Court Administrator was also directed to disseminate copies of the decision to all trial courts, including the Court of Appeals.
The SC adopted this new mandatory policy after it resolved to reverse and set aside the February 23, 2017 decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the September 24, 2013 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25, finding accused-appellant Romy Lim guilty of violating Sections 11 and 5, respectively, of Article II of RA 9165.
It also ordered the acquittal of Lim based on reasonable doubt and his immediate release from detention, unless he was being lawfully held for another cause.
The SC held that Lim should be acquitted on reasonable doubt, citing the absence of an elected public official and representatives of the DOJ and the media to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items was evident.
“In fact, their signatures do not appear in the Inventory Receipt,” the SC noted.
The SC also found out that one of the apprehending officers from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency had testified that no members of the media and barangay officials arrived at the crime scene and that no inventory was made in the PDEA office.
The SC also said that the prosecution failed to explain why they did not secure the presence of a representative from the DOJ, and that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to establish the details of an earnest effort to coordinate with and secure presence of the required witnesses.
x x x."
