Philippine Journal of Science

147 (1): 1-8, March 2018

ISSN 0031 - 7683
Date Received: 09 Sep 2016

Forensic Science in the Prosecution of Illegal Drugs Cases

Maria Socorro I. Diokno

Free Legal Assistance Group, 2F, Eastside Building, 77 Malakas Street,

Brgy. Pinyahan, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

In light of the current “war on drugs,” forensic science plays a significant role in the
prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs to ensure that no innocent persons are ever
wrongfully convicted. Prohibited drugs have been a problem in the country since the 1800s.
The Philippines has been recognized as “a significant source of high potency crystalline
methamphetamine (shabu) used both domestically and exported to locations in East and
Southeast Asia and Oceania.” Yet, the prosecution of those involved with dangerous drugs
has not been largely successful. Forensic chemists are crucial to successful drug prosecution
but current forensic capabilities could be enhanced. Also, the vital role forensic laboratories
play in the area of drug control is under-recognized. Forensic laboratories could – and
should – provide scientific guidance and advice to strengthen law enforcement, activate early
warning systems, enhance regulatory and monitoring capabilities, and develop responsive
and effective drug control, prevention, and treatment policies.

Key words: chain of custody, current forensic capabilities, dangerous drugs, drug control, forensic
chemist, prosecution

INTRODUCTION order of remand for further proceedings, by the

application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, or by a
No innocent person should ever be condemned to death reduction of the sentence. Indeed, the reduction by the
or imprisoned for any length of time. Yet, in the Court of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua has
Philippines, innocents have been wrongfully convicted, been made in no less than 483 cases or 53.25% of the
and in at least two cases, doubts have been raised on the total number. The Court has also rendered a judgment
guilt of two convicts executed by lethal injection. of acquittal in sixty-five (65) cases. In sum, the cases
In People v. Mateo (2004), the Supreme Court reviewed where the judgment of death has either been modified
statistics on capital cases. It found that between 1993 or vacated consist of an astounding 71.77% of the total
and Jun 2004, “the trial courts have imposed capital of death penalty cases directly elevated before the Court
punishment in approximately 1,493, out of which 907 on automatic review ….”
cases have been passed upon in review by the Court. In What these statistics point to is the fallibility of the
the Supreme Court, where these staggering numbers Philippine criminal justice system and the importance
find their way on automatic review, the penalty has of forensic science in ensuring that no one is ever
been affirmed in only 230 cases comprising but 25.36% wrongfully convicted.
of the total number. Significantly, in more than half or
64.61% of the cases, the judgment has been modified For space limitations, and in light of the current “war
through an on drugs,” this article will focus on the role of forensic
science
in the prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs. The
1
*Corresponding author: [email protected] paper provides an analytical summary of the
juxtaposition

2
 Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,

of law and forensic science in dangerous drugs cases, drug affectation.

presents a critical perspective of the state of forensic
science in the prosecution of cases involving dangerous The 2009 World Drug Report of the United Nations
drugs, and attempts to draw broader conclusions; the Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) identified the
paper, however, is limited by its lack of field Philippines
interviews.

Illegal Drugs in the Philippines

In its 2015 Annual Report, the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) characterized the
Philippines as a “producing and consuming country of
illegal drugs.”
Prohibited drugs have been a problem in the country
since the 1800s. In 1902, there were about 40,000
Filipino and Chinese opium users Victoria (2016).
Seventy years later, in 1972, there were about 20,000
drug users, with marijuana as their top drug of choice
(DDB 2016). In 2012, the Dangerous Drugs Board in
collaboration with the Philippine Normal University
conducted a “Nationwide Survey on the Current Nature
and Extent of Drug Abuse in the Philippines.” A key
statement was “based on the survey, it was estimated
that there could be 1.3 million drug users” in the
country. Shabu (methamphetamine HCl) and marijuana
(cannabis) are the dominant illicit drugs of choice,
followed by other drugs such as cocaine (cocao),
ecstasy [methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)]
and others (PDEA 2015).
PDEA data show that in 2016, about a third (27%) of all
barangays are “drug affected” (PNP 2016). The
Dangerous Drugs Board recently clarified the definition
of a “drug- affected barangay.” In Board Regulation
No. 2 series of 2016, the Board defined a “drug-affected
barangay” as a barangay which “has reported presence
of drug user, pusher, manufacturer, marijuana
cultivator, or other drug personality, drug den,
marijuana plantation, clandestine drug laboratory, and
facilities related to production of illegal drugs.” The
Board also designated three categories of drug
affectation: (a) seriously affected [those barangays that
have “reported at least 1 clandestine drug laboratory or
marijuana plantation in the community, reported
presence of more than 20% of the barangay’s total
population are drug personalities (i.e., users, pushers,
financier), and reported presence of three or more
drug dens or tiangges]; (b) moderately affected (those
barangays that have “reported presence of 2-20% of the
barangay’s total population are drug personalities”); and
(c) slightly affected (those barangays that have
“reported the presence of less than 2% of total barangay
population are drug personalities”). Because Board
Regulation No. 2 was adopted only on 3 Aug 2016, it is
not possible to disaggregate PDEA’s current statistics
on drug-affected barangays into the three categories of
3
 Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,
as “a significant source of high potency crystalline has been proven to be an effective way to flush
methamphetamine (shabu) used both domestically and out illegal
exported to locations in East and Southeast Asia and
Oceania. Manufacture often occurs in industrial-sized
laboratories operated by transnational organized crime
with most chemists being foreign nationals. In 2007, a
notable increase in the seizure of methamphetamine-
related manufacturing facilities was reported with nine
significant laboratories (and an additional 13 chemical
warehouses) seized, increasing in 2008 to 10
laboratories marking the third consecutive year of
increases.”
In the same year, the US State Department issued a
report, which identified corruption and poor law
enforcement as among the factors that exacerbated the
problem of illegal drug use in the country.

Lapses in the Prosecution of Those Involved in

Illicit Drugs
The prosecution of those involved with dangerous
drugs has not been largely successful. In People v.
Ancheta et al. (2012), the Supreme Court reiterated its
observations in People v. Garcia (2009), which noted
the high rate of acquittals and dismissals in cases
involving dangerous drugs:
“We close with the thought that this Court is
not unaware that in the five years that R.A.
No. 9165 has been in place, the rate of cases
that resulted in acquittals and dismissals was
higher than the rate of conviction. Under
PDEA records, the dismissals and acquittals
accounted for 56% because of the failure of
the police authorities to observe proper
procedure under the law, among others. A
recent international study conducted in 2008
showed that out of 13,667 drug cases filed
from 2003 to 2007, only 4,790 led to
convictions (most of which were cases of
simple possession); the charges against the
rest were dismissed or the accused were
acquitted.”
The Court then went further, looking into its own
records, where it noted: “Our own data on the cases
filed with us from 2006 to 2011 show that, out of
those in which this Court made acquittals and
reversals, 85% involved failure of the prosecution to
establish the arresting officers compliance with the
procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of R.A.
9165” (People v. Ancheta 2012).
Most cases involve what is known as “buy-bust
operations,” which the Supreme Court has described as
follows:
“A buy-bust operation gave rise to the
present case. While this kind of operation

4
 Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,

transactions that are otherwise conducted drug presented in court is the same illegal drug
covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation actually recovered from the
has a significant downside that has not
escaped the attention of the framers of the
law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most
notorious of which is its use as a tool for
extortion. In People v. Tan, this Court itself
recognized that by the very nature of anti-
narcotics operations, the need for entrapment
procedures, the use of shady characters as
informants, the ease with which sticks of
marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted
in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting
provincial hicks, and the secrecy that
inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the
possibility of abuse is great. Thus, courts have
been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying
drug cases lest an innocent person is made to
suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug
offenses. Accordingly, specific procedures
relating to the seizure and custody of drugs
have been laid down in the law (R.A. No.
9165) for the police to strictly follow. The
prosecution must adduce evidence that these
procedures have been followed in proving the
elements of the defined offense (Emphasis
supplied and citations omitted.)” People v.
Umipang (2012).

Crucial to a drug prosecution is the establishment of

what is known in law as corpus delicti (body of the
crime). Corpus delicti is any objective proof that a
crime has indeed taken place and this must be proven in
order to convict a person of the crime (Rimorin v.
People 2003; Black’s Law Dictionary). In cases
involving dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti is the
presentation of the dangerous drug itself (People v.
Climaco 2012). In People
v. Climaco (2012), the Supreme Court reiterated its
ruling in People v. Alcuizar, stressing the State’s
obligation to prove the corpus delicti in cases involving
dangerous drugs:
“The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this
case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
offense and in sustaining a conviction under
Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and
integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be
shown to have been preserved. This
requirement necessarily arises from the
illegal drugs unique characteristic that
renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable,
and easily open to tampering, alteration or
substitution either by accident or otherwise.
Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on
the identity and integrity of the seized drug,
evidence must definitely show that the illegal
3
 Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,
accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution purity (quantitative analysis).
for possession under Republic Act No. 9165
fails.” There have been a series of cases where doubts were
raised as to whether the dangerous drugs tested actually
The chain of custody in drugs cases has been described
by the Supreme Court as referring to four links: “first,
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized
by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer
of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the
forensic chemist to the court.” (People
v. Dahil and Castro 2015).
Forensic chemists play crucial roles in the third and
fourth links of the chain of custody in illicit drugs
cases.

Role of Forensic Chemists in the Prosecution

of those Involved in Illicit Drugs
Under Philippine law, all seized or confiscated or
surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources, controlled
precursors, and essential chemicals must be turned
over to the PDEA Laboratory Service for qualitative
and quantitative analysis within 24 hours from
confiscation, seizure, or surrender (Section 21,
Republic Act 9165). The PDEA Laboratory Service
must issue a certification of its examination results,
under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, within
24 hours from receipt of the subject items. However,
when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant
sources, and/or controlled precursors does not allow
the testing to be completed within 24 hours, a partial
laboratory examination report may be provisionally
issued stating the quantities of drugs still to be
examined; but a final certification on the completed
forensic laboratory examination must be issued within
the next 24 hours. These requirements form the third
and fourth links in the chain of custody of dangerous
drugs.
The third link in the chain of custody of dangerous
drugs refers to the turnover by the investigating officer
of the illegal drugs to the forensic chemist, to make
sure that the drugs seized, recovered, or surrendered
are the same drugs that will be subjected to
quantitative and qualitative analysis by the forensic
chemist. This means that once the investigating officer
delivers the suspected illegal drugs to the forensic
chemist, the forensic chemist must examine the
suspected substance, determine its chemical
composition (qualitative analysis), and find out
whether it contains any illegal drugs. The forensic
chemist must also establish the amount of the
dangerous drug present in the substance as well as its

4
 Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,

came from the accused. In People v. Dahil and Castro area. It also facilitates the destruction of pieces of drug
(2015), the forensic chemist who examined the and non-drug evidences that are no longer
suspected substances certified that she had “no personal
knowledge as from whom and where said substance
was taken.” In People v. Beran, cited in People v.
Dahil (2015), the police investigator claimed to have
personally delivered the drugs to the laboratory for
testing, “but there was no showing who received the
drug from him.”
The fourth link refers to the turnover of the marked
illicit drugs by the forensic chemist to the Court, when
presented as evidence in the case. The Supreme Court,
in People v. Pajarin and Pallaya (2011), recognized the
important role of forensic chemists in the prosecution of
cases involving prohibited drugs: “Further, as a rule, the
police chemist who examines a seized substance should
ordinarily testify that he received the seized article as
marked, properly sealed and intact; that he resealed it
after examination of the content; and that he placed his
own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be
tampered pending trial. In case the parties stipulate to
dispense with the attendance of the police chemist, they
should stipulate that the latter would have testified that
he took the precautionary steps mentioned.”
In several cases, forensic chemists failed to testify in
court. In other cases, forensic chemists failed to testify
how the drugs were kept while in their custody until the
drugs were transferred to the court. In these cases, the
accused were acquitted.

Current Forensic Capabilities in Illicit Drugs Cases

Forensic examination of illicit drugs seized or recovered
by, or surrendered to, authorities are undertaken by the
Crime Laboratory of the Philippine National Police
[PNP] and the PDEA Laboratory Service.
The PNP Crime Laboratory includes a chemistry
division, which conducts qualitative examinations of
dangerous drugs, substances, and paraphernalia and
examines urine and other body fluids for the presence
of dangerous drugs, essentially to determine the
presence of dangerous drugs.
By law, the PDEA Laboratory Service is empowered to
examine all seized, surrendered, or recovered dangerous
drugs. The PDEA Laboratory Service consists of three
divisions. The Examination Division conducts
laboratory examinations on seized dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, drug
tests on arrested persons, and assessment and
processing of clandestine laboratories; it also testifies in
court as expert witnesses. The Documentation and
Evidence Division manages the inventory and
safekeeping of drug and non-drug evidence and keeps
and stores the evidence in the evidence room/ storage

5
 Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,
needed in court and prepares certificates of destruction potential dangers posed by chemicals and
signed by appropriate witnesses, as well as witnesses chemical
the destruction of expired medicines and controlled
precursors and essential chemicals. The Special
Research Division conducts research, develops or
validates new methods of analysis of drugs and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
conducts quantitative examinations of dangerous
drugs and controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, and establishes capability on impurity
profiling of seized methamphetamines.
In its 2014 Annual Report, PDEA reported: “at the end
of 2014, all PDEA laboratories nationwide are already
operational. All regional forensic laboratories are
equipped with essential tools and equipment for illegal
drug detection and investigation and can analyze,
detect, collect, and process samples and pieces of
evidence.”

Independent Assessment of Current

Forensic Capabilities in Dangerous Drugs
Cases
The UNODC’S Global Synthetics Monitoring:
Analyses, Reporting and Trends (SMART)
Programme (Global Smart Programme) assessed the
forensic infrastructure in 11 countries in Asia, and sent
missions to Cambodia, Indonesia, and the Philippines
(Hammond). The rationale behind the assessment was
the recognition of the “crucial importance of forensic
laboratory as source of information [on] physical and
chemical characteristics, purities, trends, patterns of
manufacturing and trafficking, law enforcement
operations, regulatory authorities, criminal justice
system.” Among the findings were:
• The existence of multiple laboratories, (the
Philippines, for example, has 20 laboratories),
which could lead to “drug abuse patterns and
trafficking trends [being] valid for the local
situation,” making it difficult to arrive at
national patterns and trends.
• “Multiple law enforcement agencies have
overlapping anti-narcotic functions and own
supporting drug lab,” which could lead to
“inter- agency rivalry and jealousy” and thus
“poor cooperation and challenge to pool data.”
• Limited interaction between the national drug
control body and the forensic laboratory,
implying that the “importance of laboratory [is]
often not understood.”
• “Most drug labs have not received training in
the forensic aspects of clandestine laboratory
investigations.”
• “Forensic investigators are not educated on

6
 Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,

reactions in clandestine labs.” services, and they and their scientists need to be
given the opportunity to participate actively in
• The Philippine laboratories are “well-equipped.” relevant regional and global networks of
• No quantitative testing on drug samples is forensic scientists to
conducted in the Philippines “due to law
imposed time restrictions on identifying drugs
samples.”
• In the Philippines, “quantitative tests are only
made to determine the actual content of pure
drug to calculate the reward for drug
informants.”

Vital Role of Forensic Laboratories in Drug Control

These findings point not only to a need to enhance
Philippine forensic capabilities but, more importantly,
to the imperative to recognize, understand, and
appreciate the vital role forensic laboratories play in the
area of drug control. At present, it appears that the
PDEA Laboratory Service contributes to drug control
efforts in a limited way, perhaps largely circumscribed
by the strict time requirements imposed by the law. Yet,
it could– and should
– provide scientific guidance and advice to strengthen
law enforcement, activate early warning systems,
enhance regulatory and monitoring capabilities, and
develop responsive and effective drug control,
prevention, and treatment policies. As noted by Remberg
and Stead (2005):
“Despite their central role in drug control,
forensic laboratories are usually seen and
used as tools and servants rather than as
resources and partners. At best, the value of
individual laboratory results to answer a
specific question, to save a life, to help in
treatment or to identify or confirm a crime is
recognized. However, there is much less
recognition of the fact that collectively, as a
body of information, laboratory results also
constitute a valuable commodity in their own
right by helping to identify new potential
threats and health hazards, especially those
related to new drugs and manufacturing
methods, new sources of drugs and drug
availability, new purities and cutting agents,
and new products and drug combinations.”
xxx
“In general, there is a need for wider
recognition of the added value of an integrated
national scientific support service as an equal
partner with law enforcement, judicial,
regulatory and health authorities.
Laboratories need to be provided with the
resources they require to sustain high-quality
7
 Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,
exchange experience and analytical findings
at an early stage. Most importantly, national
institutions and government agencies need to
be made more aware of the range of work and
possibilities of scientific support to ensure
better use of available laboratory resources
and greater recognition of the potential value
of scientific information, beyond the use of
laboratory results as evidence in court.”
UNODC (2010) underscores the valuable contributions
of forensic science to the criminal justice system:
“Forensic services are key to an effective and fair
criminal justice system because they provide
objective and timely information for multiple phases
at different stages of the criminal justice process. For
example, forensic services are used by police to
identify suspects in the investigative phase of the
criminal justice process. Forensic services are also
used by attorneys and judges during the trial phase of
the process. The ultimate objective of forensic science
is to contribute to finding the truth, more precisely to
provide the criminal justice system with answers, using
objective evidence, and by questions aimed at
determining the guilt or innocence of an offender. It is
therefore essential that forensic services are provided
by a highly qualified and impartial entity.
The investigation and prosecution of dangerous drugs
cases would benefit from advice and guidance by
PDEA and PNP laboratories, especially in relation
to the collection, handling, and packaging of seized,
recovered, or surrendered drug evidence.
Specifically – with regard to packaging of seized,
surrendered, or recovered dangerous drugs – the PNP
Drug Evidence Bag - Chain of Custody portrayed in
the Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs
Operations and Investigation (2014) appears to be one
of a kind. Yet, forensic scientists abroad have stressed
the need for different types of packaging of
dangerous drugs, depending on the type of drug
seized, recovered, or surrendered. For example, seized
or recovered plants and plant materials should not be
placed inside plastic bags because of moisture content
and the tendency to grow mold; syringes or sharp
objects should be placed inside cardboard cartons or
glass vials and labeled as a potential biohazards
(National Forensic Science Technology Center).
Both laboratories could also consider applying for
accreditation with the Philippine Accreditation Board.
Forensic experts worldwide have been encouraging
crime laboratories to secure accreditation, mainly in
consideration of the need to regulate crime laboratories
as well as to address major shortcomings in forensic
science services (Tilstone 2008; Giannelli 2006).
Accreditation

8
 Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,

is an essential external and independent review and a Both the PNP and PDEA laboratories are attached to
reliable indication of the laboratories’ technical law enforcement agencies; to ensure that these
expertise; “it provides formal recognition that laboratories maintain their integrity and assure the
laboratories are competent, impartial and independent” qualities of their services, they may consider adopting
(ILAC 2015). Accreditation ensures that all forensic the internationally prescribed minimum standards for
services are provided in accordance with accepted the analysis of seized, surrendered, or confiscated
international standards. The benefits from dangerous drugs. These international standards are
accreditation that will redound to both PNP and PDEA proposed by the Scientific Working Group for the
laboratories are explained by the International Analysis of Seized Drugs (SWGDRUG), a group of
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), the 20 forensic experts from around the globe who “work to
global association for the accreditation of laboratories: improve the quality of the forensic examination of
Accreditation benefits laboratories by allowing seized drugs” (SWGDRUG 2016). Among the key
them to determine whether they are performing minimum standards are:
their work competently to appropriate • The adoption and implementation of a Code of
standards, and provides them with a Professional Practice for Drug Analysts, which
benchmark for maintaining that “provide(s) the framework of ethical values and
competence. Many such laboratories scientific and legal obligations within which the
operate in isolation to their peers. A regular analyst should operate.” The Code would require
assessment by an accreditation body provides drug analysts to: “strive to demonstrate that the
an opportunity for an independent technical integrity and security of evidential materials and
evaluation of their performance and checks all the information derived from their analysis have
aspects of a facility’s operations related to been maintained while in their possession;
consistently producing accurate and employ an appropriate analytical approach,
dependable data. Areas for improvement are using the facilities available; present advice and
identified and discussed, and a detailed report testimony, whether written or oral, in an
provided at the end of each visit. Where objective manner; be prepared to reconsider and,
necessary, follow-up action is monitored by if necessary, change their conclusions, advice or
the accreditation body so the facility is testimony in light of new information or
confident that it has taken the appropriate developments, and take the initiative in
corrective action (ILAC 2015). informing their employer and customers
But accreditation alone may not be sufficient to ensure promptly of any such changes that need to be
the integrity of the PNP and PDEA laboratories and the made; and take appropriate action if there is
quality of their testing. In 2009, the United States potential for, or there has been, a miscarriage of
National Academy of Sciences recommended that crime justice due to new circumstances that have come
laboratories should be independent of law enforcement, to light, incompetent practice or malpractice.”
rationalizing: “The best science is conducted in a • The development of both a sampling strategy and
scientific setting as opposed to a law enforcement a sampling scheme when conducting qualitative
setting. Because forensic scientists often are driven in analysis of samples of seized, surrendered, or
their work by a need to answer a particular question confiscated drugs. A sampling strategy indicates
related to the issues of a particular case, they sometimes whether sampling is statistical (probability-
face pressure to sacrifice appropriate methodology for based) or not; selected samples must be
the sake of expediency” (National Academy of analyzed to meet the SWGDRUG minimum
Sciences 2009). Perceived and real bias, fiscal autonomy standards for drug identification “if statistical
of crime laboratories, and the fundamentally different inferences are to be made about the chemical
rules under which law enforcement operations and identity of the population.” A sampling scheme
science operate are the principal reasons why crime is “an overall approach which includes
laboratories should be independent of law enforcement population determination, selection of the
agencies (Goldman 2009). An academic, however, sampling plan and procedure and, when
warns: “In brief, direct control can provide stronger appropriate, sample reduction prior to analysis.”
incentives and improve coordination, but strong
incentives to respond to the principal’s demands can • The use of multiple uncorrelated techniques in
increase both good and bad behavior and not all the forensic identification of seized, confiscated,
coordination is consonant with the pursuit of justice. On or surrendered drugs;
net, police control could either improve or degrade the
performance of the crime lab” (Warren 2015). • Strict adherence to the minimum standards

9
Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,
in the chemical analysis of items seized from

1
 Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,

clandestine drug laboratories, including, among

others: the exercise of caution and routine safety
REFERENCES
protocols when conducting quantitative and BLACK HC. Undated. Black’s Law Dictionary.
qualitative tests on drugs seized from clandestine
[DDB] Dangerous Drugs Board. 2016. Regulation No.
laboratories, including the use of protective
2, Amending Section 2 of Board Regulation No. 2,
breathing equipment, specialized ventilation
Series of 2007 entitled “Providing for Revised
equipment (such as fume hoods), personal
Guidelines in the Conduct of Barangay Drug-
protective equipment (e.g., safety glasses,
Clearing Operations.”
chemical resistant gloves, respirators, face
masks, air monitors, etc.), specialized [DDB] Dangerous Drugs Board. Retrieved from http://
emergency equipment stations, chemical www.ddb.gov.ph/about-ddb/history on 17 Aug 2016.
disposal and destruction facilities and
[DDB] Dangerous Drugs Board. Retrieved from http://
procedures, and specialized evidence receipt,
www.ddb.gov.ph/research-statistics/research/45-
storage and disposal requirements designed to
research-and-statistics/88-2012-researches#a on 17
mitigate expected dangers (e.g., limited sample
Aug 2016.
size, proper packaging of reactive materials,
use of absorbents, properly ventilated storage); GIANNELLI P. 2006. Wrongful Convictions and
sample selection for analysis which must relate Forensic Science: the Need to Regulate Crime Labs.
to the manufacturing process; yield and capacity
GOLDMAN A. 2009. Study: Separate Police, Labs
calculations, which may be expressed as
Because of Bias.
theoretical or expected; and specialized skills
training and continuing education for drug HAMMOND B. Undated. Powerpoint Presentation,
analysts. “Assessment of Forensic Infrastructure.”
• The establishment and maintenance of a [ILAC] International Laboratory Accreditation
documented quality management system, Cooperation. 2015. The advantages of being
including, among others, requiring laboratories Accredited. Retrieved from http://www.turkak.
to: provide adequate space, chemical hoods, and org.tr/TURKAKSITE/ILAC_eng/ILAC_The_
appropriately secured storage to prevent Advantages_2015.pdf on 10 Mar 2017.
contamination of chemicals and reagents; NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 2009.
establish and implement a laboratory cleaning Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States:
schedule; and routinely monitor instrument A Path Forward.
and equipment performance. The documented
quality management system should also address [NFSTC] National Forensic Science Technology
issues relating to evidence control (e.g., requiring Center. Retrieved from
laboratories, for chain of custody purposes, to www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/ drugs/how.html
compare evidence against submission on 26 Jul 2016.
documentation and to document any significant [PDEA] Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 2014.
observations of irregularity), integrity of Annual Report.
evidence, evidence storage, and disposition of
evidence. The documented quality management [PDEA] Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 2015.
system also requires a documented policy Annual Report.
relating to deficiency of analysis (“any erroneous [PDEA] Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. Laboratory
analytical result or interpretation, or any Service Citizen’s Charter.
unapproved deviation from an established policy
or procedure in an analysis”). People v. Ancheta. 13 Jun 2012. G.R. No. 197371.
People v. Climaco, 13 Jun 2012, G.R. No. 199403.
People v. Dahil and Castro. 12 Jan 2015. G.R. No.
CONCLUSION 212196. People v. Garcia. 25 Feb 2009. G.R. No.
With the looming re-imposition of capital punishment 173480.
in the Philippines, there is urgent need for the country
to strengthen its forensic capabilities to ensure that no People v. Mateo. 7 Jul 2004. G.R. Nos. 147678-87.
innocents are put to death, killed, or imprisoned. People v. Pajarin and Pallaya. 12 Jan 2011. G.R. No.
190640.

1
 Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,
People v. Umipang. 25 Apr 2012. G.R. 190321.
[PNP] Philippine National Police. Undated. Power Point

1
 Philippine Journal of Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of
Science Vol. 147 No. 1,

Presentation, “Use of Forensic Science in Police

Investigation.”
[PNP] Philippine National Police. Sep 2014. Revised
PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and
Investigation, PNP Police Manual PNPM-D-O-2-14
(DO).
[PNP] Philippine National Police. 23 Aug 2016. Power
Point Presentation before the Senate Committee on
Justice and Human Rights.
REMBERG B, STEAD AH. 2005. Editorial: Science in
Drug Control. Bulletin on Narcotics LVII(1&2).
Republic Act No. 9165. 7 Jun 2002. An Act Instituting
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
12th Congress of the Philippines.
Rimorin v. People. 30 Apr 2003. G.R. 146481.
[SWGDRUG] Scientific Working Group for the
Analysis
of Seized Drugs. Retrieved from http://swgdrug.org
on 12 Mar 2017.
TILSTONE W. 2008. Accreditation in Forensic Science.
[UNODC] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
2010. Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit, Forensic
Services and Infrastructure.
US State Department. 2009. International Narcotics
Control Strategy Report.
VICTORIA FPF. Jul 2016. “Criminalizing Drug Use in
the Philippines: the ‘Black Sunday’ of 1908.”
Bayanihan News.
WARREN P. 2015. Laboratory Independence, Control
and Exonerations.