By: The state acknowledges that drug use in the country is one of today’s 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 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 .A.The Problem Areas in R. 198051.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. December 10. G. .R. Dumaplin. 2012. No. from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction(People vs. 687 SCRA 631). and the final disposition (Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.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. Series of 2002). 1. the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence. . October 9. Guzon. 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. It is crucial in ensuring the integrity of the chain of custody.R. 199901. G. the marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. 2013) . No. because succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or related items will use the marking as reference.” or contamination of evidence.Chain of Custody Rule Under the foregoing rules. (People vs. obviating switching. “planting. 584 SCRA 717. 185719.R. 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. No. April 7.Presumption of Regularity in The Performance of Official Duties In People vs. citing People v. Collado (G. G.R. No. 2013. There must be a showing of clear and convincing evidence to successfully rebut this presumption. . Capalad. 184174. June 17. 2009. 186392.A. 9165. the presumption will stand (People vs.Presumption of Regularity in The Performance of Official Duties In cases involving violations of R. 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. Sabadlab. GR No. . 18 January 2012). 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 dangerous drug itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law prohibiting the possession of dangerous drug.Preservation of the Integrity and Evidentiary Value of the Confiscated Items Corpus delicti is the body of substance of the crime and. refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. . in its primary sense. .It has been held that a non-compliance with the regulations is not necessarily fatal to render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible as evidence of his guilt. GR No. 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. 177320. Bautista. 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. However. 9165 must be explained in terms of their justifiable grounds. 531 SCRA 828.A. G. Beran G. . No. No. August 31.R. No. Pringas. 2014). 842-843). 2007. January 15. non-compliance with Section 21 does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible (People v. 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. 203028. and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved (People vs. 175928.R. . Philippines Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Coordination Philippines Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Coordination The provision does not. a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5. . After all. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA(People vs. 9165 in support of the PDEA. GR No. 8 February 2012). Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court. Arriola. 187736. which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. by so saying. make PDEA’s participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. 192913. 186141.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. 2013). June 13. People vs. 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. Joel G. GR No. . 11 April 2012. No. Figueroa.R. 376 Phil. all the elements of illegal sale of shabu were adequately proven and established by the prosecution. As has been previously discussed. Requiz. . 750. 760 [1999]) which the prosecution in this case was able to do so. 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.Philippines Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Coordination To repeat. in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. R. make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buybust operation. No. it was held that. 6 May 2010. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation.Philippines Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Coordination In People v. While it is true that Section 86 of Republic Act No. Roa (G. 620 SCRA 359). coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. . PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters. by so saying. 186134." the provision does not. A. however. 9165.Circumstance of Conspiracy The Supreme Court said. 16 January 2012). People. GR No. 193943. The crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist (Posiquit vs. . that the circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of dangerous drugs under R. but if the drug remains under his control and management. he is still deemed to be in possession of the same(People vs. 194445. Posada. 12 March 2012). the Supreme Court elucidated that the meaning of the word “having possession of” includes constructive possession. GR No. .Constructive Possession However. Although the owner of the drug is not in actual possession of the drug. Juan (Phil." .Constructive Possession Citing United States v. "the relation between the owner of the drug and the drug itself when the owner is not in actual physical possession. that is. but when it is still under his control and management and subject to his disposition. 105 [1912]). the meaning of the words "having possession of” included constructive possession. sanctioned by law.Buy-Bust Operation A buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure. 85 [2000]). July 20. Mantalaba. 654 SCRA 188. No. 384 Phil. 186227. for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors (People v. Chua Uy.R. G. citing People v. 199. 70. . 2011. 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. No. . 2013). and must be undertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards (People vs. 192913.R. G. Joel. June 13. Policarpio (158 SCRA 88 [1988]). 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. . 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.Right of the Accused to Remain Silent In People v. . the Court explained that the failure of the prosecution to present in court the alleged poseur-buyer is fatal to its case. Tadepa (314 Phil.Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money In People v. 231 [1995]). He was merely watching from a distance and he only saw the actions of the two. Polizon. The police was not privy to the conversation between poseur buyer and the accused.Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money The Court held in People v. 214 SCRA 56) that the nonpresentation of the alleged poseur-buyer. the police had no personal knowledge of the transaction that transpired between the poseur and the accused.R. 1992. . 84917. September 18.(G. thus. No. weakens the prosecution’s evidence. it was essential that the poseur buyer should have been presented to rebut accused’s testimony.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. . 5 [e]). This it failed to do giving rise to the presumption that evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced (Rule 131. Sec. .Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money The Court further held that it becomes incumbent upon the prosecution to rebut appellant’s allegation by presenting the alleged poseur-buyer. it was supposedly witnessed only by the poseur-buyer. Olaes (G.Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money The Court also ruled in People v. hence. that the nonpresentation of the poseur-buyer was fatal to the prosecution’s case. July 30. 76547.R. who then was the only person who had personal knowledge of the transaction. 188 SCRA 91). No. 1990. since the alleged sale transaction happened inside the accused’s house. . in several instances.Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money While the Court. Ambrosio. 241 [2004]). 471 Phil. there being some other eyewitness who is competent to testify on the sale transaction (People v. has affirmed an accused’s conviction notwithstanding the nonpresentation of the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation. such failure is excusable only when the poseurbuyer’s testimony is merely corroborative. . 117 [2002]). 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. 96. Bongalon.Non-Presentation of the Poseur Buyer & Buy-Bust Money Similarly. . 425 Phil. June 13.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. ." However. 192913. No.R. Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution which states. 2013). the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine cannot apply in the face of a valid buy-bust operation(People vs. G. Rebotazo. "any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 116 U. would compel this court to apply the exclusionary rule and declare the seized articles inadmissible in evidence.Doctrine of “Fruit of Poisonous Tree” The failure to observe the rights of the accused coupled with some irregularities attending the warrantless search.. Francisco. . August 22. and against any stealthy encroachments thereon (People v. U.S. G. This must necessarily be so since it is the court's solemn duty to be ever watchful for the constitutional rights of the people.R. 129035.S. 616 (1886]). 2002 citing Boyd vs. No. No. in justifying the application of the plain view doctrine.2d 352 [1973]). “It is a recognition of the fact that when executing police officers come across immediately incriminating evidence not covered by the warrant. (G.” . Isip. 163858.. citing United States v. 484 F. etc. the Supreme Court said. in the case United Laboratories.Doctrine of “Fruit of Poisonous Tree” Emphatically. vs. they should not be required to close their eyes to it. Gray. June 28. Inc. 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. 2005.R. R. 1997).A. 123595. the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search. the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made. C. and People (G.Doctrine of “Fruit of Poisonous Tree” In Malacat vs. said otherwise. . 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. December 12. No. . 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”.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. applies. Consequently. Allowing this kind of arrest and subsequent search would certainly violate the privacy of the accused as guaranteed by the constitution. “It is the natural tendency of every transgressor with perhaps very rare exceptions. from all liability that might arise from his act. to acquit himself while he can do so. Layos (60 Phil 760. or at least mitigate in the eyes of the law and of his fellowmen”. 766).The Defense of Denial and Frame-Up in Drug Cases The defense of denial of the accused in drug cases is understandable. it was held that. In People vs. . It is to escape liability. . No. that denial is intrinsically a weak defense commonly used is drug related cases. unsubstantiated by clear and strong evidence.The Defense of Denial and Frame-Up in Drug Cases Also. it was held that in drug related cases the accused would usually and conveniently raise the defense of denial. 2010). 180870. in another case.R. People (G. in an attempt to avoid criminal liability. Further. January 22. the court is aware of the principle as held in Cacao vs. frame-up is an allegation that can easily be concocted. .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. Anabe. 179033. assumes primacy when the case for the prosecution is at the margin of sufficiency in establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt (People vs.R.The Defense of Denial and Frame-Up in Drug Cases Notwithstanding the foregoing legal mandate on the evidentiary value of denial and frame-up. G. September 6. . 2010). these defenses however. No. Conclusion The fact that the proliferation of dangerous drugs is indeed a threat to peace. the nobility of the intention should not be the only primary consideration in the enforcement of the law. . Stated otherwise. yet the zealousness of our police authorities and law enforcement agencies in curbing the danger which rightly deserved commendation. stability and security to society. should follow a caveat that the exercise of police authority should be done in harmony with procedural rules and consistent with a person’s fundamental rights. . 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 one’s basic rights are duly recognized and protected. and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.Conclusion Ultimately and for emphasis. 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. Thank you and Good Afternoon Everyone! .