The Supreme Court has acquitted two more drug suspect after law enforcers failed to observe the mandatory witness rule.
The high bench said in its ruling that without the insulating presence of the mandatory witnesses during the seizure and marking of evidence in warrantless drug arrests, the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence negates the integrity and credibility of the seized items, casting reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.
The decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan of 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 Republic Act 9165 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.
The two accused 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 Department.
The evidence for the prosecution included a Chain of Custody Form and 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 the following insulating witnesses: Jun E. Tobias, a journalist, and Nelson N. dela Cruz a barangay kagawad.
The press identification card of Tobias was also attached, but no other document identifies Dela Cruz as kagawad.
The Regional Trial Court 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.
The RTC also held that the police officers’ actions enjoyed the presumption of regularity absent any showing of ill motive or intent on the part of the police officers to illegally incriminate the accused.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC ruling prompting the accused to file a petition with the SC.
As to Truelen, his 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 under Section 21 of RA 9165, 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.
