notes jurisprudence drug cases

7/26/2019 Notes Jurisprudence Drug Cases

1/7

What is a buy bust operation; nature

Buy-bust operations are legally sanctioned procedures, provided

they are undertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal

safeguards.

At the outset, buy-bust operations are legally sanctioned procedures

for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. These operations

are often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and

capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious

activities.27A busy-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,

28

and must beundertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal

safeguards.29

However, as we have observed in People v. Garcia,30while this kind

of operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out

illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in

secrecy, it 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. Thus,

in People v. Tan,31courts 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.

Jurisprudence has consistently held that the procedural safeguards

enunciated in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 must be strictly observed,

among which are provided as follows:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or

Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,

Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,

Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The

PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,

plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and

essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or

laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for

proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control

of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_192913_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_192913_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_192913_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_192913_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_192913_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_192913_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_192913_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_192913_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_192913_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_192913_2013.html#fnt31


2/7

physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence

of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were

confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or

counsel, a representative from the media and the Department

of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be

required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy

thereof;

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of

dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled

precursors and essential chemicals, as well as

instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the

same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory fora qualitative and quantitative examination;

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Every criminal case starts with the constitutionally-protected

presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that can only be

defeated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution starts

the trial process by presenting evidence showing the presence of all

the elements of the offense charged. If the prosecution proves allthe required elements, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused

to disprove the prosecutions case. Based on these presentations,

the court must then determine if the guilt of the accused has been

proven beyond reasonable doubt. It may happen though that the

prosecution, even before the presentation by the defense, already

has failed to prove all the elements of the crime charged, in which

case, the presumption of innocence prevails; the burden of evidence

does not shift to the accused, who no longer needs to presentevidence in his defense.

In a prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug, the

prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of

the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2)

the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these

require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with

the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body orsubstance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually

been committed,20as shown by presenting the object of the illegal

transaction. In the present case, the object is marijuana which the

prosecution must present and prove in court to be the same item
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt20


3/7

seized from the accused. It is in this respect that the prosecution

failed.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In People v. Sanchez,34we held that in case of warrantless seizure

(such as a buy-bust operation) under R.A. No. 9165, the physical

inventory and photograph of the items shall be made by the buy-

bust team, if practicable,at the placethey were seized, considering

that such interpretation is more in keeping with the laws intent of

preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

The prosecution, in the present case, failed to explain why the

required inventory and photographing of the seized items were notpracticable and could not have been done at the place of seizure.

-------------------------------------------------------------

In a prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug, the

prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of

the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2)

the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these

require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with

the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or

substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually

been committed,20as shown by presenting the object of the illegal

transaction. In the present case, the object is marijuana which the

prosecution must present and prove in court to be the same item

seized from the accused. It is in this respect that the prosecution

failed.

The requirements of paragraph 1, Section 21

of Article II ofR.A. No. 9165.

A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind

of operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out

illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in

secrecy,21a buy-bust operation 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,22this 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
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_173480_2009.html#fnt22


4/7

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.

The first procedural safeguard that the police failed to observe (and

which both the RTC and the CA failed to take into account) is thatprovided under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

This provision states:

1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the

drugsshall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,physically

inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the

accused or the person/s from whom such items were

confiscatedand/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, arepresentative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),

and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the

copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. [Emphasis

supplied.]

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 further

elaborate on the legal requirement by providing, under its Section

21(a), that:

(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control

of the drugs shall,immediatelyafter seizure and confiscation,

physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of

the accused or the person/s from whom such items were

confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a

representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),

and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the

copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,further that non-compliance with these requirements under

justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary

value of the seized items are properly preserved by the


5/7

apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such

seizures of and custody over said items.[Emphasis supplied.]

G.R. No. 173480

---------------------------------------------------------

Elements for the Prosecution of Illegal

Sale and Possession of Shabu.

In every prosecution for the illegal sale ofshabu, under Section 5,

Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proved: "(1) the

identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the

consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and thepayment therefor. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal

sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale

actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of

thecorpus delicti"17or the illicit drug in evidence. On the other

hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous

drugs under Section 11, Article II of the same law, the following

elements must concur: "(1) the accused is in possession of an item

or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug; (2) suchpossession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and

consciously possessed the drug.18

Failure to Physically Inventory and

Photograph the Shabu After Seizure

and Confiscation is Not Fatal.

Appellant draws attention to the failure of the apprehending police

officers to comply with Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing

Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 regarding the physical inventory

and photograph of the seized items. This provision reads as follows:

(1) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and

control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and

confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the

presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items

were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative orcounsel, a representative from the media and the Department of

Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required

to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy

thereof;Provided,that the physical inventory and photograph shall
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189840_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189840_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189840_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189840_2013.html#fnt18


6/7

be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at

the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the

apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of

warrantless seizures;Provided further,that non-compliance with

these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the

integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly

preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void

and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

In other words, the failure of the prosecution to show that the police

officers conducted the required physical inventory and take

photograph of the objects confiscated does notipso factorender

inadmissible in evidence the items seized. There is aprovisoin theimplementing rules stating that when it is shown that there exist

justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary

value of the evidence have been preserved, the seized items can still

be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.21

G.R. No. 189840 December 11, 2013

-------------------------------------------------

The defenses of denial and frame-upare unavailing.

The Court cannot convince itself to reverse the finding of facts of the lowercourts on the basis of appellants self-serving allegations of denial andextortion/frame-up.

Denial cannot prevail against the positive testimony of a prosecutionwitness. ! defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by

clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving"deserving no weight in law" and cannot be given greater evidentiary valueover convincing" straightforward and probable testimony on affirmativematters.#$

!ppellant cannot li%ewise avail of the defense of frame-up which is viewedwith disfavor since" li%e alibi" it can easily be concocted and is a commonploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs &aw. #'Tosubstantiate this defense" the evidence must be clear and convincing andshould show that the buy-bust team was inspired by improper motive or

was not properly performing its duty.()*ere" there is no evidence that therewas ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team. +n fact" appellant himselfadmitted that he did not %now the police officers prior to his arrest. Therecould therefore be no bad blood between him and the said police officers.,oreover" there was no proof that the arresting officers improperlyperformed their duty in arresting appellant and arcon.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189840_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190621_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190621_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190621_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189840_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190621_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190621_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_190621_2014.html#fnt30


7/7

----------------------------------------------------------

notes jurisprudence drug cases

Documents