By:

The state acknowledges that drug use in the country

is one of todays more serious social ills, and in order to
safeguard the integrity of its territory and the well-being of
its citizenry particularly the youth, for the harmful effects of
dangerous drugs on their physical and mental well-being,
and to defend the same against acts or omissions
detrimental to their development and preservation, this law
was enacted (Sec. 2, 1st par., R.A. 9165).

The Problem Areas in R.A. 9165:

Chain of Custody Rule
Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of
Official Duties
Preservation of the Integrity and Evidentiary Value of
the Confiscated Items
Philippines Drug and Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
Coordination
Circumstance of Conspiracy
Constructive Possession

The Problem Areas in R.A. 9165: continued

Buy-Bust Operation
Right of the Accused to Remain Silent
Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust
Money
Doctrine of Fruit of Poisonous Tree
The Defense of Denial and Frame-Up in Drug Cases
Conclusion

Chain of Custody Rule

Chain of Custody means the duly recorded

authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or

controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction(People

vs. Dumaplin, G.R. No. 198051, December 10, 2012, 687

SCRA 631).

Chain of Custody Rule

Such record of movements and custody of seized

item shall include the identity and signature of the person
who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date
and time when such transfer of custody were made in the
course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and
the final disposition (Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs

Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002).

Chain of Custody Rule

Under the foregoing rules, the marking immediately

after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link,

because succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or related

items will use the marking as reference. It further serves to
segregate the marked evidence from the corpus delicti of all
other similar and related evidence from the time they are seized
from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the
criminal proceedings, obviating switching, planting, or
contamination of evidence. It is crucial in ensuring the integrity
of the chain of custody. (People vs. Guzon, G.R. No. 199901,

October 9, 2013)

Presumption of Regularity in The Performance of Official Duties

In People vs. Collado (G.R. No. 185719, June 17,

2013, citing People v. Capalad, G.R. No. 184174, April 7,

2009, 584 SCRA 717, 727, it was held that mere allegations
and self-serving statements will not overcome the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties accorded to police officers. There must be a showing
of clear and convincing evidence to successfully rebut this
presumption.

Presumption of Regularity in The Performance of Official Duties

In cases involving violations of R.A. 9165, the

testimony of police officers as prosecution witnesses is
given more weight because it is presumed that they
performed their duties in a regular manner. In the
absence of evidence suggesting ill motive on the part of
the police officers or deviation from the regular
performance of their duties, the presumption will stand
(People vs. Sabadlab, GR No. 186392, 18 January 2012).

Preservation of the Integrity and Evidentiary Value of the

Confiscated Items
Corpus delicti is the body of substance of the crime and,
in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been
actually committed. The dangerous drug itself the very corpus
delicti of the violation of the law prohibiting the possession of
dangerous drug.

It has been held that a non-compliance with the

regulations is not necessarily fatal to render an accuseds
arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible
as evidence of his guilt, for what is of the utmost importance
is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the confiscated items that will be utilized in the
determination of his guilt or innocence(People vs. Bautista,

GR No. 177320, 22 February 2012).

Preservation of the Integrity and Evidentiary Value of the Confiscated Items

Lapses in the strict compliance with the requirements

of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 must be explained in terms of
their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been
preserved (People vs. Beran G.R. No. 203028, January 15,
2014). However, non-compliance with Section 21 does not
necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized
inadmissible (People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31,
2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843). What is essential is that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved which would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused.

Philippines Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Coordination

Philippines Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Coordination

The provision does not, by so saying, make PDEAs
participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust
operation.
After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in
flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully
resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165
in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not
invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA(People

vs. Arriola, GR No. 187736, 8 February 2012).

Philippines Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Coordination

Said provision does not invalidate operations on

account of the law enforcers failure on the part of the law
enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to
conducting a buy-bust operation. This silence cannot be
interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without
the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained
pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible (People vs.

Figueroa, GR No. 186141, 11 April 2012; People vs. Joel

G.R. No. 192913, June 13, 2013).

Philippines Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Coordination

To repeat, in a prosecution for illegal sale of

dangerous drugs, like shabu, what is important is the fact
that the poseur-buyer received shabu from the accusedappellant and the same was presented as evidence in court
(People v. Requiz, 376 Phil. 750, 760 [1999]) which the
prosecution in this case was able to do so. As has been
previously discussed, all the elements of illegal sale of
shabu were adequately proven and established by the
prosecution.

Philippines Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Coordination

In People v. Roa (G.R. No. 186134, 6 May 2010, 620

SCRA 359), it was held that, coordination with the PDEA is
not an indispensable requirement before police authorities
may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that
Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National
Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to
maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug
related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make
PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buybust operation.

Circumstance of Conspiracy
The Supreme Court said, however, that the
circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime
of possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165. The
crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous
drugs does not exist (Posiquit vs. People, GR No. 193943,

16 January 2012).

Constructive Possession
However, the Supreme Court elucidated that the
meaning of the word having possession of includes
constructive possession. Although the owner of the drug
is not in actual possession of the drug, but if the drug
remains under his control and management, he is still
deemed to be in possession of the same(People vs.

Posada, GR No. 194445, 12 March 2012).

Constructive Possession

Citing United States v. Juan (Phil. 105 [1912]), the

meaning of the words "having possession of included
constructive possession, that is, "the relation between the
owner of the drug and the drug itself when the owner is
not in actual physical possession, but when it is still under
his control and management and subject to his
disposition."

Buy-Bust Operation
A buy-bust operation is a legally effective and
proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending
drug peddlers and distributors (People v. Mantalaba, G.R.

No. 186227, July 20, 2011, 654 SCRA 188, 199, citing
People v. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 85 [2000]).

Buy-Bust Operation

A buy-bust operation is one form of entrapment

employed by peace officers as an effective way of
apprehending a criminal in the act of committing an
offense, and must be undertaken with due regard for
constitutional and legal safeguards (People vs. Joel, G.R.

No. 192913, June 13, 2013).

Right of the Accused to Remain Silent

In People v. Policarpio (158 SCRA 88 [1988]), it was
held that such practice of inducing suspects to sign receipts
for property allegedly confiscated from their possession is
unusual and violative of the constitutional right to remain
silent. The Inventory Receipt and related papers signed by
the accused are inadmissible for being violative of their
right to remain silent and at the same time an indication of
the irregularity in the manner by which the searching team
conducted the search of the residence of the accused.

Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money

In People v. Tadepa (314 Phil. 231 [1995]), the
Court explained that the failure of the prosecution to
present in court the alleged poseur-buyer is fatal to its
case.

Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money

The Court held in People v. Polizon,(G.R. No. 84917,

September 18, 1992, 214 SCRA 56) that the nonpresentation of the alleged poseur-buyer, weakens the
prosecutions evidence. The police was not privy to the
conversation between poseur buyer and the accused. He
was merely watching from a distance and he only saw the
actions of the two, thus, the police had no personal
knowledge of the transaction that transpired between the
poseur and the accused.

Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money

Since the accused insisted that he was forced by the

poseur buyer to buy the marijuana, it was essential that
the poseur buyer should have been presented to rebut
accuseds testimony.

Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money

The Court further held that it becomes incumbent

upon the prosecution to rebut appellants allegation by
presenting the alleged poseur-buyer. This it failed to do
giving rise to the presumption that evidence wilfully
suppressed would be adverse if produced (Rule 131, Sec.

5 [e]).

Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money

The Court also ruled in People v. Olaes (G.R. No.

76547, July 30, 1990, 188 SCRA 91), that the nonpresentation of the poseur-buyer was fatal to the
prosecutions case, since the alleged sale transaction
happened inside the accuseds house; hence, it was
supposedly witnessed only by the poseur-buyer, who then
was the only person who had personal knowledge of the
transaction.

Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money

While the Court, in several instances, has affirmed

an accuseds conviction notwithstanding the nonpresentation of the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust
operation, such failure is excusable only when the poseurbuyers testimony is merely corroborative, there being
some other eyewitness who is competent to testify on the
sale transaction (People v. Ambrosio, 471 Phil. 241

[2004]).

Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money

Similarly, the absence of marked money does not create

a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution provided that the
prosecution has adequately proved the sale(People v.
Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96, 117 [2002]).

Doctrine of Fruit of Poisonous Tree

The doctrine of the "fruit of the poisonous tree"
which refers to the principle that the confiscated item is
inadmissible in evidence consistent with Article III, Section
3(2) of the 1987 Constitution which states, "any evidence
obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding."
However, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine cannot
apply in the face of a valid buy-bust operation(People vs.

Rebotazo, G.R. No. 192913, June 13, 2013).

Doctrine of Fruit of Poisonous Tree

The failure to observe the rights of the accused

coupled with some irregularities attending the warrantless
search, would compel this court to apply the exclusionary
rule and declare the seized articles inadmissible in
evidence. This must necessarily be so since it is the
court's solemn duty to be ever watchful for the
constitutional rights of the people, and against any
stealthy encroachments thereon (People v. Francisco, G.R.

No. 129035, August 22, 2002 citing Boyd vs. U.S., 116
U.S. 616 (1886]).

Doctrine of Fruit of Poisonous Tree

Emphatically, in the case United Laboratories, Inc.,

vs. Isip, etc. (G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005, citing
United States v. Gray, 484 F.2d 352 [1973]), in justifying

the application of the plain view doctrine, the Supreme

Court said, It is a recognition of the fact that when

executing police officers come across immediately

incriminating evidence not covered by the warrant, they
should not be required to close their eyes to it, regardless
of whether it is evidence of the crime they are investigating
or evidence of some other crime. It would be needless to
require the police to obtain another warrant.

Doctrine of Fruit of Poisonous Tree

In Malacat vs. C.A. and People (G.R. No. 123595,

December 12, 1997), it was held that there must first be a
lawful arrest before a search the process cannot be
reversed saying that in a search incidental to a lawful
arrest, the precedent arrest determines the validity of the
incidental search, said otherwise, the law requires that
there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made.

Doctrine of Fruit of Poisonous Tree

There is therefore a blatant violation of the rights

of the accused solemnly guaranteed in Section 2 of Article
III of the Constitution. Allowing this kind of arrest and
subsequent search would certainly violate the privacy of
the accused as guaranteed by the constitution.
Consequently, the exclusionary rule under Section 3 (2) of
Article III of the Constitution which provides that any

evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding

section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding, applies.

The Defense of Denial and Frame-Up in Drug Cases

The defense of denial of the accused in drug cases
is understandable. It is to escape liability. In People vs.
Layos (60 Phil 760, 766), it was held that, It is the

natural tendency of every transgressor with perhaps very

rare exceptions, to acquit himself while he can do so,
from all liability that might arise from his act, or at least
mitigate in the eyes of the law and of his fellowmen.

The Defense of Denial and Frame-Up in Drug Cases

Also, the court is aware of the principle as held in

Cacao vs. People (G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2010),
that denial is intrinsically a weak defense commonly used
is drug related cases. Further, in another case, it was
held that in drug related cases the accused would usually
and conveniently raise the defense of denial,
unsubstantiated by clear and strong evidence, in an
attempt to avoid criminal liability.

The Defense of Denial and Frame-Up in Drug Cases

Even if the accused would raise the defense of

frame-up, it must necessarily fail because it has been
consistently ruled that frame-up is a banal defense of
those accused in drug-related cases that is viewed with
disfavor. Like the defense of alibi, frame-up is an
allegation that can easily be concocted.

The Defense of Denial and Frame-Up in Drug Cases

Notwithstanding the foregoing legal mandate on

the evidentiary value of denial and frame-up, these
defenses however, assumes primacy when the case for
the prosecution is at the margin of sufficiency in
establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt (People vs.

Anabe, G.R. No. 179033, September 6, 2010).

Conclusion
The fact that the proliferation of dangerous drugs
is indeed a threat to peace, stability and security to
society, yet the zealousness of our police authorities and
law enforcement agencies in curbing the danger which
rightly deserved commendation, should follow a caveat
that the exercise of police authority should be done in
harmony with procedural rules and consistent with a
persons fundamental rights. Stated otherwise, the
nobility of the intention should not be the only primary
consideration in the enforcement of the law.

Conclusion

Ultimately and for emphasis, it is not the primary

duty of a court of justice to convict an accused but
equally important is the role of the court to see to it that
ones basic rights are duly recognized and protected. As
stated earlier, this must necessarily be so since it is the
court's solemn duty to be ever watchful for the
constitutional rights of the people, and against any
stealthy encroachments thereon.

Thank you and

Good Afternoon
Everyone!