POINTS TO CONSIDER TO CONVICT ACCUSED IN DRUG CASES

HERE ARE SOME POINTS TO CONSIDER IN ORDER TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN DRUG CASES

1. Certainly, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that, during the proceedings before the trial court, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. The rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item.A stricter adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration (G.R. No. 234156, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMMANUEL OLIVA Y JORJIL, BERNARDO BARANGOT Y PILAIS AND MARK ANGELO MANALASTAS Y GAPASIN, Accused-Appellants)

2. The Court that this raises doubts if the items presented in the trial court were the exact ones taken from accused-appellant. The Court also held that the compromise of the integrity of the corpus delicti was further magnified by the gap in the chain of custody as the testimony of the National Bureau of Investigation agent who seized the sachets of shabu showed he merely submitted the same to the Forensic Chemistry Division for examination and safekeeping and did not identify the person to whom he gave the seized illegal drugs upon delivery.

The Court thus concluded that the totality of the evidence presented shows that the arresting officers who conducted the buy-bust operation were remiss in the performance of their official functions. They made discrepancies in the markings of the seized illegal drugs, and failed to comply with the chain of custody. Consequently, the Court held that the presumption of regularity in favour of arresting officers was negated. (G.R. No. 222192, People v. Ameril, March 13, 2019) (GR238174, PP V GAIDA KAMAD Y PAKAY , FEB 5, 2020)

3. The prosecution miserably failed to establish or explain why the police officers did not secure the presence of an elected public official, a representative from the DOJ, and the media. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also failed to establish that there was earnest effort to coordinate with and secure the presence of the required witnesses. Thus it cannot be denied that serious breaches of the mandatory procedures required by law in the conduct of the buy bust operations were committed by the police. These cast serious doubt as to the integrity of the allegedly confiscated drug specimen, hence creating reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant. (GR 239781, PP v Eric Padua, Feb 5, 2020) (GR  236596, PP V SALI, JAN 29, 2020)

4. There were persistent doubts in the origins of the drug supposedly seized from the accused-appellant. The absence of the required witnesses during seizure, marking, inventory, and taking of photographs, along with the police officers' failure to conduct these at the place of the arrest. and their nonpresentation of material witnesses who handled the items; and, lastly their utter failure to justify the blatant lapses, reveal a seriously compromised chain of custody. Taken together, these instances raise doubt on the integrity of the confiscated items and ultimately, on the commission of the crime (GR 221457, PP vs. Gilbert Sebilleno y Casabar, January 13, 2020);

5. In People v Sanchez emphasized that the marking is a separate and distinct step from inventory and photographing. It is also emphasized that marking must be done "immediately upon confiscation.

In People v. Coreche, the Supreme Court explained that failure to immediately mark or seized drugs engenders an initial, fatal gap in chain of custody.(GR 245972, PP v Martin H. Asaytuno, Jr. and Renato H. Asaytuno, Dec 2, 2019)

6. In People v Tomawis, The Highest Court explained that the third-party witnesses required by Section 21 must be present even at the time of apprehension.

The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. (GR 245972, PP v Martin H. Asaytuno, Jr. and Renato H. Asaytuno, Dec 2, 2019)