SC clears 2 drug convicts
After cops fail to observe witness rule
The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted two drug convicts over the law enforcers’ failure to comply with the mandatory witness rule.
In a decision promulgated in October 2023 and released on Friday, the SC’s Third Division reversed a ruling of the regional trial court and the Court of Appeals (CA), which convicted Gerald Flores, Harold Francisco and Louie Truelen of the sale of illegal drugs.
Truelen’s criminal liability was extinguished in 2021 following his death while in detention.
In 2016, the three were arrested during a sting conducted by the Quezon City Police District.
One of the pieces of evidence against them was a form containing the inventory of the seized items. It was signed by reporter Jun Tobias and barangay councilor Nelson dela Cruz.
Tobias’ identification card was attached to the record, but no document identifying Dela Cruz as barangay councilor was included.
In acquitting Flores and Francisco, the SC stressed the importance of complying with the mandatory insulating witness rule under Section 21 of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The law provides that the apprehending team is required to conduct the photographing and physical inventory of the seized items immediately after confiscation.
The SC noted that this must be done in the presence of “the accused, his counsel or representative, representative of the Department of Justice, the media and an elected public official,” who are required to sign copies of the inventory.
“It is their presence at the time of the seizure that would insulate against the police practice of planting evidence,” the decision read.
The SC said it found that there was uncertainty in the presence of required witnesses due to deficiencies in the inventory form.
The SC also noted that police officers admitted that the required witnesses were not readily available as it took them a significant amount of time to arrive at the police station.
There was also a glaring discrepancy between the signature of the media representative on the inventory form and his identification card, the SC said.
“Given the uncertainty as to the actual time of the conduct of the inventory, the unexplained and significant tardiness of the supposed insulating witnesses, and the magnified uncertainty of their actual participation vis-a-vis the preparation of the inventory form, it is as if there were no mandatory insulating witnesses at all,” the decision read.