Lacking media witness, SC clears man of drug raps

The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a man of illegal drug charges, particularly planting and cultivating marijuana, after finding that police lacked a media representative during his arrest.

In a 16-page ruling promulgated on Feb. 14, the SC’s First Division overturned the decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA) and regional trial court that found Ben Bation guilty of violating Section 16, Article 2 of Republic Act 9165 for planting and cultivating marijuana.

Based on court records, Bation was arrested in March 2010 after police caught him sprinkling fertilizer and watering plants – confirmed to be marijuana – near his house in Siquijor.

Bation denied the charge, saying that at the time of his arrest, he was gathering foliage for his farm animals and the pail of water he was carrying was for washing himself since he had to defecate outside their house as their toilet was broken.

He also claimed police officers took him to the area where the marijuana plants were found and forced him to water the plants.

He said the land where the marijuana plants were found was owned by a certain “Bayuyong.”

The lower court found him guilty, sentencing him to life in prison and a fine of P6 million.

In his appeal to the CA, Bation argued that the search for marijuana plants was illegal as there should have been a search warrant procured before it was conducted.

The plain view doctrine, he said, does not apply because the police did not inadvertently come across the plants. Instead they purposely went to the area and waited for him to arrive.

Police officers also failed to comply with the chain of custody of the illegal drugs.

In response, the prosecution claimed the police did not enter any private property and merely conducted an ocular inspection.

The property was not owned by Bation, therefore a search warrant is not needed, prosecutors said.

Chain of custody

In resolving the case, the SC said while Bation’s arrest was valid, as well as the warrantless search of the property prior to his arrest, he should be acquitted because police officers did not comply with the rule on chain of custody, particularly the three-witness requirement.

Under Section 21 of RA 9165, three witnesses must be present during warrantless arrests to avoid frame-ups or wrongful arrests: a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and an elected public official.

“The presence of the three witnesses prevents the possibility of planting evidence on the person or effects of the accused. The prosecution must allege and prove that the witnesses were present during the marking, inventory and photograph of the seized items,” the SC said.

In Bation’s case, the High Court noted that only a representative from DOJ and two elected public officials were present during the marking, inventory and photograph of the seized items. There was no representative from the media.

The SC said the prosecution “failed to explain satisfactorily the absence of the representative from the media” and records show that the police did not exert “earnest efforts” in finding a media representative.

“Substituting the media representative with another elected public official does not suffice as the law is clear with the designation of the required witnesses,” the high tribunal said.

“This failure produces a gap in the chain of custody that adversely affects the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized plants. The identity of the object of the offense was therefore not properly established,” it added.