DANGEROUS DRUGS CASE DOCTRINES and verifies the nature of the substance (a) consent or meeting of the minds,
ting of the minds, 1) the seizure and marking, if
INTEGRITY OF SEIZED ARTICLES
The integrity of the seized articles
would remain even if the apprehending
officer coursed their transmittal to the
crime laboratory through the
investigator-on-case since they had
been sealed and marked. It does not
matter that another person, probably a
police courier would eventually deliver
the sealed substances by hand to the
crime laboratory. (People vs. Catentay)
People v. Habana describes how the
integrity of the substance seized from
the accused might be preserved. Thus:
“Usually, the police officer
who seizes the suspected substance
turns it over to a supervising officer,
who would then send it by courier to
the police crime laboratory for testing.
Since it is unavoidable that possession
of the substance changes hand a
number of times, it is imperative for
the officer who seized the substance
from the suspect to place his marking
on its plastic container and seal the
same, preferably with adhesive tape
that cannot be removed without
leaving a tear on the plastic container.
At the trial, the officer can then identify
the seized substance and the
procedure he observed to preserve its
integrity until it reaches the crime
laboratory.
If the substance is not in a
plastic container, the officer should put
it in one and seal the same. In this way
the substance would assuredly reach
the laboratory in the same condition it
was seized from the accused. Further,
after the laboratory technician tests
in the container, he should put his own
mark on the plastic container and seal
it again with a new seal since the police
officer’s seal has been broken. At the
trial, the technician can then describe
the sealed condition of the plastic
container when it was handed to him
and testify on the procedure he took
afterwards to preserve its integrity.
If the sealing of the seized
substance has not been made, the
prosecution would have to present
every police officer, messenger,
laboratory technician, and storage
personnel, the entire chain of custody,
no matter how briefly one’s possession
has been. Each of them has to testify
that the substance, although unsealed,
has not been tampered with or
substituted while in his care.”
CORPUS DELICTI OF ILLEGAL SALE
In order to successfully prosecute an
accused for illegal sale of drugs, the
prosecution must be able to prove the
following elements:
(1) identities of the buyer and seller,
the object, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment therefor.
What is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in Court
of the corpus delicti as evidence.
In Roble vs. Arbasa,14 this Court held
that the essential elements of a sale are
the following:
that is consent to transfer ownership in
exchange for the price;
(b) determinate subject matter; and
(c) price certain in money or its
equivalent.
Proof of the corpus delicti in a buy-bust
situation requires evidence, not only
that the transacted drugs actually exist,
but evidence as well that the drugs
seized and examined are the same
drugs presented in court. This is a
condition sine qua non for conviction as
the drugs are the main subject of the
illegal sale constituting the crime and
their existence and identification must
be proven for the crime to exist.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
It would include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is
offered into evidence, in such a way
that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from
whom it was received, where it was
and what happened to it while in the
witnesses' possession, the condition in
which it was received and the condition
in which it was delivered to the next
link in the chain. These witnesses
would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no
change in the condition of the item and
no opportunity for someone not in the
chain to have possession of the same.
Links that must be established in the
chain of custody in a buy-bust
situation:
practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
2) the turnover of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer;
3) the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination;
4) the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the court.
As long as the chain of custody of the
seized substance was clearly
established not to have been broken
and that the prosecution did not fail to
identify properly the drugs seized, it is
not indispensable that each and every
person who came into possession of
the drugs should take the witness
stand.
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
A presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty applies
when nothing in the record suggests
that the law enforcers deviated from
the standard conduct of official duty
required by law; where the official act
is irregular on its face, the presumption
cannot arise.
ENTRAPMENT / INSTIGATION
A buy-bust operation is a form of
entrapment which in recent years has
been accepted as a valid and effective
mode of apprehending drug pushers. In
a buy-bust operation, the idea to
commit a crime originates from the
offender, without anybody inducing or
prodding him to commit the offense.
Instigation is the means by which the
accused is lured into the commission of
the offense charged in order to
prosecute him. On the other hand,
entrapment is the employment of such
ways and means for the purpose of
trapping or capturing a lawbreaker.
The general rule is that it is no defense
to the perpetrator of a crime that
facilities for its commission were
purposely placed in his way, or that the
criminal act was done at the ‘decoy
solicitation’ of persons seeking to
expose the criminal, or that detectives
feigning complicity in the act were
present and apparently assisting in its
commission. Especially is this true in
that class of cases where the offense is
one of a kind habitually committed,
and the solicitation merely furnishes
evidence of a course of conduct. Mere
deception by the detective will not
shield defendant, if the offense was
committed by him, free from the
influence or instigation of the
detective.
One form of entrapment is the buy-
bust operation. It is legal and has been
proved to be an effective method of
apprehending drug peddlers, provided
due regard to constitutional and legal
safeguards is undertaken.12
A police officer’s act of soliciting drugs
from the accused during a buy-bust
operation, or what is known as a
"decoy solicitation," is not prohibited
by law and does not render the buy-
bust operation invalid.
In People v. Ganguso,38 it has been held
that prior surveillance is not a
prerequisite for the validity of an
entrapment operation, especially when
the buy-bust team members were
accompanied to the scene by their
informant.
The non-presentation of the poseur-
buyer is fatal only if there is no other
eyewitness to the illicit transaction.
The presentation of the boodle money,
as a general rule, is not indispensable in
the prosecution of a drug case,
OBJECTIVE TEST
In determining the credibility of
prosecution witnesses regarding the
conduct of buy-bust operation, the
"objective test," as laid down in People
v. Doria,28 is utilized.
The "objective" test in buy-bust
operations demands that the details of
the purported transaction must be
clearly and adequately shown. This
must start from the initial contact
between the poseur-buyer and the
pusher, the offer to purchase, the
promise or payment of the
consideration until the consummation
of the sale by the delivery of the illegal
drug subject of the sale. The manner by
which the initial contact was made,
whether or not through an informant,
the offer to purchase the drug, the
payment of the "buy-bust" money, and
the delivery of the illegal drug, whether
to the informant alone or the police
officer, must be the subject of strict
scrutiny by courts to insure that law-
abiding citizens are not unlawfully
induced to commit an offense.
Prosecutions of cases for violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Act arising from
buy-bust operations largely depend on
the credibility of the police officers who
conducted the same.
SUBJECTIVE TEST - "subjective" or
"origin of intent" test laid down
in Sorrells v. United States[31] to
determine whether entrapment
actually occurred. The focus of the
inquiry is on the accused's
predisposition to commit the offense
charged, his state of mind and
inclination before his initial exposure to
government agents. All relevant facts
such as the accused's mental and
character traits, his past offenses,
activities, his eagerness in committing
the crime, his reputation, etc., are
considered to assess his state of mind
before the crime.[33] The predisposition
test emphasizes the accused's
propensity to commit the offense
rather than the officer's
misconduct[34] and reflects an attempt
to draw a line between a "trap for the
unwary innocent and the trap for the
unwary criminal."
Adopting the "objective" approach has
not precluded us from likewise applying
the "subjective" test. At the same
time, however, examining the conduct
of the police should not disable courts
into ignoring the accused's
predisposition to commit the crime. If
there is overwhelming evidence of
habitual delinquency, recidivism or
plain criminal proclivity, then this must
also be considered. Courts should look
at all factors to determine the
predisposition of an accused to commit
an offense in so far as they are relevant
to determine the validity of the defense
of inducement.
FRAME-UP
Like the defense of alibi, frame-up is an
allegation that can easily be
concocted. For this claim to prosper,
the defense must adduce clear and
convincing evidence to overcome the
presumption of regularity of official
acts of government officials.26 Absent
any proof of motive to falsely accuse
him of such a grave offense, the
presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty and the
findings of the trial court with respect
to the credibility of witnesses shall
prevail over that of the accused-
appellant.
SECTION 21 PROCEDURES
Failure by the buy-bust team to comply
with section 21 did not prevent the
presumption of regularity in the
performance of duty from applying.
The procedure is a matter strictly
between the Dangerous Drugs Board
and the arresting officers and is totally
irrelevant to the prosecution of the
criminal case for the reason that the
commission of the crime of illegal sale
of a prohibited drug is considered
consummated once the sale or
transaction is established and the
prosecution thereof is not undermined
by the failure of the arresting officers
to comply with the regulations of the
Dangerous Drugs Board.
COORDINATION WITH PDEA
Coordination with the PDEA is not an
indispensable requirement before
police authorities may carry out a buy-
bust operation.
While it is true that Section 86 of
Republic Act No. 9165 requires the
National Bureau of Investigation, PNP
and the Bureau of Customs to maintain
"close coordination with the PDEA on
all drug related matters," the provision
does not, by so saying, make PDEA’s
participation a condition sine qua non
for every buy-bust operation. After all,
a buy-bust is just a form of an in
flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section
5, Rule 11335 of the Rules of the Court,
which police authorities may rightfully
resort to in apprehending violators of
Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the
PDEA.36 A buy-bust operation is not
invalidated by mere non-coordination
with the PDEA.
MANDATORY DRUG TESTING
They may even be exempt from
criminal liability should the illegal drug
user consent to undergo rehabilitation.
The random drug testing shall be
undertaken under conditions calculated
to protect as much as possible the
employee's privacy and dignity. As to
the mechanics of the test, the law
specifies that the procedure shall
employ two testing methods, i.e., the
screening test and the confirmatory
test, doubtless to ensure as much as
possible the trustworthiness of the
results.
In addition, the IRR issued by the DOH
provides that access to the drug results
shall be on the "need to know"
basis;34 that the "drug test result and
the records shall be [kept] confidential
subject to the usual accepted practices
to protect the confidentiality of the test
results."35Notably, RA 9165 does not
oblige the employer concerned to
report to the prosecuting agencies any
information or evidence relating to the
violation of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act received as a
result of the operation of the drug
testing. All told, therefore, the intrusion
into the employees' privacy, under RA
9165, is accompanied by proper
safeguards, particularly against
embarrassing leakages of test results,
and is relatively minimal.
The operative concepts in the
mandatory drug testing are
"randomness" and "suspicionless."
PROBATION
While drug traffickers and pushers, like
Padua, are categorically disqualified
from availing the law on probation,
youthful drug dependents, users and
possessors alike, are given the chance
to mend their ways.
The law indeed appears strict and harsh
against drug traffickers and drug
pushers while protective of drug users.
NEGATIVE ALLEGATION
The general rule is that if a criminal
charge is predicated on a negative
allegation, or a negative averment is an
essential element of a crime, the
prosecution has the burden to prove
the charge. However, this rule admits
of exceptions. Where the negative of
an issue does not permit of direct
proof, or where the facts are more
immediately within the knowledge of
the accused, the onus probandi rests
upon him. Stated otherwise, it is not
incumbent on the prosecution to
adduce positive evidence to support a
negative averment the truth of which is
fairly indicated by established
circumstances and which, if untrue,
could readily be disproved by the
production of documents or other
evidence within the defendant’s
knowledge or control. For example,
where a charge is made that a
defendant carried on a certain business
without a license (as in the case at bar,
where the accused is charged with the
sale of a regulated drug without
authority), the fact that he has a license
is a matter which is peculiarly within his
knowledge and he must establish that
fact or suffer conviction.