SC issues rules on drug-related cases

The SC said the chain of custody must be a mandatory requirement, as well as other rules found under the law, to "weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket any orchestrated or poorly built up drugrelated cases."

Deputy court administrator and officerin-charge of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Raul Bautista Villanueva issued OCA Circular No. 210-2018 on October 1, 2018 addressed to the Regional Trial Court to enforce the chain of custody policy.

The circular states the court "may exercise" it's 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 5 of the Rules of Court.

The SC said the apprehending officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

In case of nonobservance of the provision, however, the arresting officer must state the justification or explanation, as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.

The SC added that if there was no justification expressly declared in the sworn statements when arresting officers filed the complaint before the prosecutor's office, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court.

Instead, the officer must refer the complaint for further preliminary investigation to determine whether or not there is a probable cause.

The policy came on the heels of the acquittal of suspected drug trader Romy Lim of drug charges after the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) failed to follow the chain of custody in the marking of evidence on drug cases.

Lim was arrested in a buy-bust operation in Cagayan de Oro City on October 19, 2010. Seized in his possession was .02 grams of shabu.

RA 9165 requires the arresting team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph evidence in the presence of the accused or his representative, a member of the media, a member of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.

In Lim's case, none of the three independent representatives were present in PDEA's inventory, and therefore, did not make the required signatures on the inventory receipt.

The SC said the PDEA, as well as the prosecution, failed to show a justifiable reason why said representatives could not be reached for the inventory.

This creates reasonable doubt, the SC said.

"In other words, in a criminal case, the prosecution must offer sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably believe that an item still is what the government claims it to be," the SC said.

The SC reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Regional Trial Court Branch 25 of Cagayan de Oro convicting and sentencing Lim to life in 2012. —

Manto/KBQ

Mylen P.