This document discusses several legal doctrines related to dangerous drugs cases involving buy-bust operations in the Philippines. It addresses the integrity of seized evidence, requirements to prove illegal drug sales, the chain of custody that must be established, and defenses like entrapment and frame-up. Specifically, it notes that the integrity of seized drugs can be maintained even if handled by multiple parties, as long as the chain of custody is clearly documented. It also outlines the elements needed to prove an illegal drug sale occurred and discusses standards for determining whether entrapment or valid law enforcement occurred in a buy-bust situation.
This document discusses several legal doctrines related to dangerous drugs cases involving buy-bust operations in the Philippines. It addresses the integrity of seized evidence, requirements to prove illegal drug sales, the chain of custody that must be established, and defenses like entrapment and frame-up. Specifically, it notes that the integrity of seized drugs can be maintained even if handled by multiple parties, as long as the chain of custody is clearly documented. It also outlines the elements needed to prove an illegal drug sale occurred and discusses standards for determining whether entrapment or valid law enforcement occurred in a buy-bust situation.
This document discusses several legal doctrines related to dangerous drugs cases involving buy-bust operations in the Philippines. It addresses the integrity of seized evidence, requirements to prove illegal drug sales, the chain of custody that must be established, and defenses like entrapment and frame-up. Specifically, it notes that the integrity of seized drugs can be maintained even if handled by multiple parties, as long as the chain of custody is clearly documented. It also outlines the elements needed to prove an illegal drug sale occurred and discusses standards for determining whether entrapment or valid law enforcement occurred in a buy-bust situation.
DANGEROUS DRUGS CASE DOCTRINES and verifies the nature of the substance (a) consent or meeting of the minds,
ting of the minds, 1) the seizure and marking, if
in the container, he should put his own that is consent to transfer ownership in practicable, of the illegal drug INTEGRITY OF SEIZED ARTICLES mark on the plastic container and seal exchange for the price; recovered from the accused by the it again with a new seal since the police apprehending officer; The integrity of the seized articles officer’s seal has been broken. At the (b) determinate subject matter; and 2) the turnover of the illegal drug would remain even if the apprehending trial, the technician can then describe seized by the apprehending officer to officer coursed their transmittal to the the sealed condition of the plastic (c) price certain in money or its the investigating officer; crime laboratory through the container when it was handed to him equivalent. 3) the turnover by the investigating investigator-on-case since they had and testify on the procedure he took officer of the illegal drug to the forensic been sealed and marked. It does not afterwards to preserve its integrity. Proof of the corpus delicti in a buy-bust chemist for laboratory examination; matter that another person, probably a If the sealing of the seized situation requires evidence, not only 4) the turnover and submission of the police courier would eventually deliver substance has not been made, the that the transacted drugs actually exist, marked illegal drug seized from the the sealed substances by hand to the prosecution would have to present but evidence as well that the drugs forensic chemist to the court. crime laboratory. (People vs. Catentay) every police officer, messenger, seized and examined are the same laboratory technician, and storage drugs presented in court. This is a As long as the chain of custody of the People v. Habana describes how the personnel, the entire chain of custody, condition sine qua non for conviction as seized substance was clearly integrity of the substance seized from no matter how briefly one’s possession the drugs are the main subject of the established not to have been broken the accused might be preserved. Thus: has been. Each of them has to testify illegal sale constituting the crime and and that the prosecution did not fail to “Usually, the police officer that the substance, although unsealed, their existence and identification must identify properly the drugs seized, it is who seizes the suspected substance has not been tampered with or be proven for the crime to exist. not indispensable that each and every turns it over to a supervising officer, substituted while in his care.” person who came into possession of who would then send it by courier to CHAIN OF CUSTODY the drugs should take the witness the police crime laboratory for testing. CORPUS DELICTI OF ILLEGAL SALE stand. Since it is unavoidable that possession It would include testimony about every of the substance changes hand a In order to successfully prosecute an link in the chain, from the moment the PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY number of times, it is imperative for accused for illegal sale of drugs, the item was picked up to the time it is the officer who seized the substance prosecution must be able to prove the offered into evidence, in such a way A presumption of regularity in the from the suspect to place his marking following elements: that every person who touched the performance of official duty applies on its plastic container and seal the exhibit would describe how and from when nothing in the record suggests same, preferably with adhesive tape (1) identities of the buyer and seller, whom it was received, where it was that the law enforcers deviated from that cannot be removed without the object, and the consideration; and and what happened to it while in the the standard conduct of official duty leaving a tear on the plastic container. witnesses' possession, the condition in required by law; where the official act At the trial, the officer can then identify (2) the delivery of the thing sold and which it was received and the condition is irregular on its face, the presumption the seized substance and the the payment therefor. in which it was delivered to the next cannot arise. procedure he observed to preserve its link in the chain. These witnesses integrity until it reaches the crime What is material is the proof that the would then describe the precautions ENTRAPMENT / INSTIGATION laboratory. transaction or sale actually took place, taken to ensure that there had been no If the substance is not in a coupled with the presentation in Court change in the condition of the item and A buy-bust operation is a form of plastic container, the officer should put of the corpus delicti as evidence. no opportunity for someone not in the entrapment which in recent years has it in one and seal the same. In this way chain to have possession of the same. been accepted as a valid and effective the substance would assuredly reach In Roble vs. Arbasa,14 this Court held mode of apprehending drug pushers. In the laboratory in the same condition it that the essential elements of a sale are Links that must be established in the a buy-bust operation, the idea to was seized from the accused. Further, the following: chain of custody in a buy-bust commit a crime originates from the after the laboratory technician tests situation: offender, without anybody inducing or In People v. Ganguso,38 it has been held abiding citizens are not unlawfully at all factors to determine the prodding him to commit the offense. that prior surveillance is not a induced to commit an offense. predisposition of an accused to commit prerequisite for the validity of an an offense in so far as they are relevant Instigation is the means by which the entrapment operation, especially when Prosecutions of cases for violation of to determine the validity of the defense accused is lured into the commission of the buy-bust team members were the Dangerous Drugs Act arising from of inducement. the offense charged in order to accompanied to the scene by their buy-bust operations largely depend on prosecute him. On the other hand, informant. the credibility of the police officers who FRAME-UP entrapment is the employment of such conducted the same. ways and means for the purpose of The non-presentation of the poseur- Like the defense of alibi, frame-up is an trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. buyer is fatal only if there is no other SUBJECTIVE TEST - "subjective" or allegation that can easily be eyewitness to the illicit transaction. "origin of intent" test laid down concocted. For this claim to prosper, The general rule is that it is no defense in Sorrells v. United States[31] to the defense must adduce clear and to the perpetrator of a crime that The presentation of the boodle money, determine whether entrapment convincing evidence to overcome the facilities for its commission were as a general rule, is not indispensable in actually occurred. The focus of the presumption of regularity of official purposely placed in his way, or that the the prosecution of a drug case, inquiry is on the accused's acts of government officials.26 Absent criminal act was done at the ‘decoy predisposition to commit the offense any proof of motive to falsely accuse solicitation’ of persons seeking to OBJECTIVE TEST charged, his state of mind and him of such a grave offense, the expose the criminal, or that detectives inclination before his initial exposure to presumption of regularity in the feigning complicity in the act were In determining the credibility of government agents. All relevant facts performance of official duty and the present and apparently assisting in its prosecution witnesses regarding the such as the accused's mental and findings of the trial court with respect commission. Especially is this true in conduct of buy-bust operation, the character traits, his past offenses, to the credibility of witnesses shall that class of cases where the offense is "objective test," as laid down in People activities, his eagerness in committing prevail over that of the accused- one of a kind habitually committed, v. Doria,28 is utilized. the crime, his reputation, etc., are appellant. and the solicitation merely furnishes considered to assess his state of mind evidence of a course of conduct. Mere The "objective" test in buy-bust before the crime.[33] The predisposition deception by the detective will not operations demands that the details of test emphasizes the accused's SECTION 21 PROCEDURES shield defendant, if the offense was the purported transaction must be propensity to commit the offense committed by him, free from the clearly and adequately shown. This rather than the officer's Failure by the buy-bust team to comply influence or instigation of the must start from the initial contact misconduct[34] and reflects an attempt with section 21 did not prevent the detective. between the poseur-buyer and the to draw a line between a "trap for the presumption of regularity in the pusher, the offer to purchase, the unwary innocent and the trap for the performance of duty from applying. One form of entrapment is the buy- promise or payment of the unwary criminal." bust operation. It is legal and has been consideration until the consummation The procedure is a matter strictly proved to be an effective method of of the sale by the delivery of the illegal Adopting the "objective" approach has between the Dangerous Drugs Board apprehending drug peddlers, provided drug subject of the sale. The manner by not precluded us from likewise applying and the arresting officers and is totally due regard to constitutional and legal which the initial contact was made, the "subjective" test. At the same irrelevant to the prosecution of the safeguards is undertaken.12 whether or not through an informant, time, however, examining the conduct criminal case for the reason that the the offer to purchase the drug, the of the police should not disable courts commission of the crime of illegal sale A police officer’s act of soliciting drugs payment of the "buy-bust" money, and into ignoring the accused's of a prohibited drug is considered from the accused during a buy-bust the delivery of the illegal drug, whether predisposition to commit the crime. If consummated once the sale or operation, or what is known as a to the informant alone or the police there is overwhelming evidence of transaction is established and the "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited officer, must be the subject of strict habitual delinquency, recidivism or prosecution thereof is not undermined by law and does not render the buy- scrutiny by courts to insure that law- plain criminal proclivity, then this must by the failure of the arresting officers bust operation invalid. also be considered. Courts should look to comply with the regulations of the possible the trustworthiness of the NEGATIVE ALLEGATION Dangerous Drugs Board. results. The general rule is that if a criminal COORDINATION WITH PDEA In addition, the IRR issued by the DOH charge is predicated on a negative provides that access to the drug results allegation, or a negative averment is an Coordination with the PDEA is not an shall be on the "need to know" essential element of a crime, the indispensable requirement before basis;34 that the "drug test result and prosecution has the burden to prove police authorities may carry out a buy- the records shall be [kept] confidential the charge. However, this rule admits bust operation. subject to the usual accepted practices of exceptions. Where the negative of to protect the confidentiality of the test an issue does not permit of direct While it is true that Section 86 of results."35Notably, RA 9165 does not proof, or where the facts are more Republic Act No. 9165 requires the oblige the employer concerned to immediately within the knowledge of National Bureau of Investigation, PNP report to the prosecuting agencies any the accused, the onus probandi rests and the Bureau of Customs to maintain information or evidence relating to the upon him. Stated otherwise, it is not "close coordination with the PDEA on violation of the Comprehensive incumbent on the prosecution to all drug related matters," the provision Dangerous Drugs Act received as a adduce positive evidence to support a does not, by so saying, make PDEA’s result of the operation of the drug negative averment the truth of which is participation a condition sine qua non testing. All told, therefore, the intrusion fairly indicated by established for every buy-bust operation. After all, into the employees' privacy, under RA circumstances and which, if untrue, a buy-bust is just a form of an in 9165, is accompanied by proper could readily be disproved by the flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section safeguards, particularly against production of documents or other 5, Rule 11335 of the Rules of the Court, embarrassing leakages of test results, evidence within the defendant’s which police authorities may rightfully and is relatively minimal. knowledge or control. For example, resort to in apprehending violators of where a charge is made that a Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the The operative concepts in the defendant carried on a certain business PDEA.36 A buy-bust operation is not mandatory drug testing are without a license (as in the case at bar, invalidated by mere non-coordination "randomness" and "suspicionless." where the accused is charged with the with the PDEA. sale of a regulated drug without PROBATION authority), the fact that he has a license MANDATORY DRUG TESTING is a matter which is peculiarly within his While drug traffickers and pushers, like knowledge and he must establish that They may even be exempt from Padua, are categorically disqualified fact or suffer conviction. criminal liability should the illegal drug from availing the law on probation, user consent to undergo rehabilitation. youthful drug dependents, users and possessors alike, are given the chance The random drug testing shall be to mend their ways. undertaken under conditions calculated to protect as much as possible the The law indeed appears strict and harsh employee's privacy and dignity. As to against drug traffickers and drug the mechanics of the test, the law pushers while protective of drug users. specifies that the procedure shall employ two testing methods, i.e., the screening test and the confirmatory test, doubtless to ensure as much as