SC acquits drug suspects over ‘witness rule’ mess

THE Supreme Court has acquitted two suspects in a drug case for law enforcers’ failure to comply with the mandatory witness rule. In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the Supreme Court’s Third Division granted the appeal of Gerald Flores and Harrold Francisco, who challenged their conviction by the lower court for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Flores and Francisco, along with Louie Truelen, were charged in 2016 for the sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, following a buy-bust operation conducted by the Quezon City Police District (QCPD).

The evidence for the prosecution included a Chain of Custody Form and an Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property Form accomplished by the arresting officers. At the bottom of the latter form appear the names and signatures of several witnesses.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 77 found the accused guilty, noting that the validity of the buy-bust operation was not affected by the fact that there was no preparatory coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

The RTC also held that the police officers’ actions enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the absence of any indication of an ill motive or intent on the part of the police officers to illegally incriminate the accused.

The RTC ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the accused to file a petition before the Supreme Court.

Truelen’s criminal liability was extinguished in 2021 following his death while in detention.

In granting Flores and Francisco’s appeal, the Court stressed the importance of complying with the mandatory insulating witness rule, which requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items, and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation, to be done in the presence of the accused, his counsel or representative, a representative of the Department of Justice, the media, and an elected public official. These witnesses shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy.

The Court further held that the required witnesses should already be physically present at the time or near the place of apprehension — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the operation is by nature a planned activity.

The rationale, the Court said, is that “it is at the time of arrest — or at the time of the drugs’ seizure and confiscation — that the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would insulate against the police practice of planting evidence.”

“Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses preserves an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items,” said the Court.

The Court clarified, however, that the mandatory insulating witnesses are not required to witness the arrest and seizure or confiscation of the drugs or drug paraphernalia but need only be readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.

Applying the foregoing to the present case, the Court found there is uncertainty regarding the time of the actual conduct of the inventory and the presence of the mandatory insulating witnesses due to the deficiencies in the inventory form.

Further, the Court said that the admissions from the police officers show that the insulating witnesses were not readily available for the performance of their statutory functions, since it took them a significant amount of time to arrive at the police station.

The Court concluded that while it remains its duty to be the arbiter of final scrutiny when it comes to such compliance (or lack thereof), everything begins at the scene of the crime and the place of apprehension, search, or seizure.

“The frontliners of the Philippine criminal justice system would do well to remember their important roles in the administration of our anti-drug laws, so that they may see the value of their functions and duties in keeping our streets and communities safe from the menace of illegal substances, and that they may do their work in strict and faithful accordance with their mandates and their institutional principles,” the Supreme Court said.