Dear PAO,

Can police officers dispense with the requirement of insulating witnesses considering that large quantities of dangerous drugs were recovered from the scene of the crime?

Busa

Dear Busa,

In People v. Lung Wai Tang, GR 238517, Nov. 27, 2019, penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, the Supreme Court held that where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is small, strict adherence to the procedural requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act 9165 (RA 9165), as amended, is required, because such miniscule amount is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration of evidence. However, recovery of large amount of dangerous drugs does not excuse apprehending officers from complying with the same procedural requirements. This is the gist of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Robert Uy, et al., GR 250307, Feb. 21, 2023, penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, which held:

“In the instant case, despite large or substantial amount of dangerous drugs being involved, the Court must acquit accused-appellant due to the failure of the law enforcement agents to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 21 of RA No. 9165…

“Herein, the Court finds untenable the ground proffered by the prosecution to justify the absence of the three insulating witnesses during the November 10, 2003 operation and the absence of the DOJ representative during the November 11, 2003 operation.

“xxx

“On the bases of the foregoing, the Court finds that there was noncompliance with the requirement of Sec. 21 and such failure cannot be excused. Thus, the corpus delicti of the seized items during both operations was not proven…

“Accordingly, due to the egregious deficiencies in the observance of the rule on the chain of custody of the items seized from both the November 10 and November 11 operations, the Court cannot conclude that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Again, large amount of dangerous drugs involved in the instant case does not excuse the failure to prove the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized items. There is reasonable doubt as to the corpus delicti. Accused-appellant must be acquitted on both charges on the bases of reasonable doubt.”

Guided by the foregoing decision, it is clear that recovery of large quantities of dangerous drugs does not excuse the police officers from complying with procedural requirements under Section 21, of Republic Act 9165, as amended by RA 10640. Thus, the apprehending officers must still strictly comply with these procedural requirements regardless of the amount of dangerous drugs recovered.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]