SC Acquits Accused in Drug Case for Law Enforcers’ Failure to Comply with Mandatory Witness Rule
February 2, 2024
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.
Thus reiterated the Supreme Court’s Third Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, granting the appeal of Gerald Flores (Flores) and Harrold Francisco (Francisco) who challenged their conviction by the lower court for violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.
Flores and Francisco, along with Louie Truelen (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 (QCPD).
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 (Tobias), a senior reporter for the media outlet Hirit/Saksi, and Nelson N. Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), a barangay kagawad. The press identification card of Tobias was also attached. However, no other document identifies Dela Cruz as kagawad.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) 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 RTC was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the present petition from Flores and Francisco. 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 (DOJ), the media, and an elected public official. These witnesses shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy.
The Court further held, as laid down in its 2018 ruling in People v. Tomawis, that the required witnesses should already be physically present at the time or near the place of apprehension—a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the operation is by nature a planned activity.
The rationale, the Court said, is that “it is at the time of arrest—or at the time of the drugs’ seizure and confiscation—that the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would insulate against the police practice of planting evidence.” Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses preserves an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items, said the Court.
The Court clarified, however, that as stated in the 2022 case of Nisperos v. People, the mandatory insulating witnesses are not required to witness the arrest and seizure or confiscation of the drugs or drug paraphernalia but need only be readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.
Applying the foregoing to the present case, the Court found there is uncertainty regarding the time of the actual conduct of the inventory and the presence of the mandatory insulating witnesses due to the deficiencies in the inventory form.
Further, admissions from the police officers show that the insulating witnesses were not readily available for performance of their statutory functions, since it took them a significant amount of time to arrive at the police station.
The Court also ruled that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the identities and credentials of the mandatory insulating witnesses, along with their presence at the inventory of the confiscated items. However, there is nothing from the records that could establish that Dela Cruz was a barangay kagawad. As to Tobias, there is a glaring discrepancy between the signature of the media representative on the inventory form and that on the media representative’s presented identification card. Finally, the police officers themselves admitted that no other proof of the said witnesses’ presence during inventory is present in the record, aside from their supposed signatures on the inventory form.
Thus, due to the lack of conformity with the relevant rules on evidence, including the failure to prove the basic fact of at least one mandatory insulating witness having acted as an elected public official by witnessing the inventory and signing the inventory form in his official capacity, the prosecution failed to prove the key element of compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, which is deemed included as an element of any relevant offense in the said law.
Overall, 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, said the Court.
While non-compliance will not automatically render the seizure of the items void and invalid, this is true only when (1) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
In the present case, however, no justifications were offered by the police officers and the prosecution as to why the inventory form was prima facie accomplished at around the same time the buy-bust operation was about to commence, or as to why the supposed insulating witnesses were late for their witnessing of the inventory, or even why the identities and credentials of the persons who appeared and presented themselves as the mandatory witnesses were not subject to a simple screening process.
The Court also warned that there exists a serious danger for law enforcement officers and personnel to feign compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 by “simply pulling any Tom, Dick or Harry off from the street and coercing said person to sign the inventory form without further need to adduce proof of identity or credentials. Worse off, law enforcement officers and personnel may even supply the names and signatures themselves and pass off the doctored inventory form as legitimate enough to be attached to the indictment along with other supporting documents.”
Thus, despite the “understandable deluge of drug cases that occupy the judiciary’s dockets and valuable time, this Court must yet again repeat its fundamental admonition to law enforcement agencies, prosecution offices, and especially trial and appellate courts that they assiduously apply all standing precedents and regulations relative to Section 21 of RA 9165.”
The Court concluded that while it remains its duty to be the arbiter of final scrutiny when it comes to such compliance (or lack thereof), everything begins at the scene of the crime and the place of apprehension, search, or seizure. “The frontliners of the Philippine criminal justice system would do well to remember their important roles in the administration of our anti-drug laws, in order that they may see the value of their functions and duties in keeping our streets and communities safe from the menace of illegal substances, and that they may do their work in strict and faithful accordance with their mandates and their institutional principles.” (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
FULL TEXT of G.R. No. 262686 (People v. Gerald Flores) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/262686-people-of-the-philippines-vs-gerald-flores-y-alagdon-harrold-francisco-y-gabat-a-k-a-punonoy-and-louie-truelen-y-grezola/