7/27/2019 Dangerous Drugs Case Doctrines

1/3

DANGEROUS DRUGS CASE

DOCTRINES

INTEGRITY OF SEIZED ARTICLES

The integrity of the seized articles

would remain even if the apprehending

officer coursed their transmittal to the

crime laboratory through theinvestigator-on-case since they had

been sealed and marked. It does not

matter that another person, probably a

police courier would eventually deliver

the sealed substances by hand to the

crime laboratory. (People vs. Catentay)

People v. Habana describes how the

integrity of the substance seized from

the accused might be preserved. Thus:

Usually, the police officer

who seizes the suspected substance

turns it over to a supervising officer,

who would then send it by courier to

the police crime laboratory for testing.

Since it is unavoidable that possession

of the substance changes hand a

number of times, it is imperative for

the officer who seized the substance

from the suspect to place his marking

on its plastic container and seal the

same, preferably with adhesive tape

that cannot be removed without

leaving a tear on the plastic container.

At the trial, the officer can then identify

the seized substance and the

procedure he observed to preserve its

integrity until it reaches the crime

laboratory.

If the substance is not in a

plastic container, the officer should put

it in one and seal the same. In this way

the substance would assuredly reach

the laboratory in the same condition itwas seized from the accused. Further,

after the laboratory technician tests

and verifies the nature of the substance

in the container, he should put his own

mark on the plastic container and seal

it again with a new seal since the police

officers seal has been broken. At the

trial, the technician can then describe

the sealed condition of the plastic

container when it was handed to himand testify on the procedure he took

afterwards to preserve its integrity.

If the sealing of the seized

substance has not been made, the

prosecution would have to present

every police officer, messenger,

laboratory technician, and storage

personnel, the entire chain of custody,

no matter how briefly ones possession

has been. Each of them has to testify

that the substance, although unsealed,has not been tampered with or

substituted while in his care.

CORPUS DELICTI OF ILLEGAL SALE

In order to successfully prosecute an

accused for illegal sale of drugs, the

prosecution must be able to prove the

following elements:

(1) identities of the buyer and seller,

the object, and the consideration; and

(2) the delivery of the thing sold and

the payment therefor.

What is material is the proof that the

transaction or sale actually took place,

coupled with the presentation in Court

of the corpus delicti as evidence.

InRoble vs. Arbasa,14

this Court held

that the essential elements of a sale arethe following:

(a) consent or meeting of the minds,

that is consent to transfer ownership in

exchange for the price;

(b) determinate subject matter; and

(c) price certain in money or its

equivalent.

Proof of the corpus delictiin a buy-bust

situation requires evidence, not only

that the transacted drugs actually exist,

but evidence as well that the drugs

seized and examined are the same

drugs presented in court. This is a

condition sine qua non for conviction as

the drugs are the main subject of the

illegal sale constituting the crime and

their existence and identification mustbe proven for the crime to exist.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

It would include testimony about every

link in the chain, from the moment the

item was picked up to the time it is

offered into evidence, in such a way

that every person who touched the

exhibit would describe how and from

whom it was received, where it was

and what happened to it while in the

witnesses' possession, the condition in

which it was received and the condition

in which it was delivered to the next

link in the chain. These witnesses

would then describe the precautions

taken to ensure that there had been no

change in the condition of the item and

no opportunity for someone not in the

chain to have possession of the same.

Links that must be established in the

chain of custody in a buy-bust

situation:

1) the seizure and marking, if

practicable, of the illegal drug

recovered from the accused by the

apprehending officer;

2) the turnover of the illegal drug

seized by the apprehending officer tothe investigating officer;

3) the turnover by the investigating

officer of the illegal drug to the forensic

chemist for laboratory examination;

4) the turnover and submission of the

marked illegal drug seized from the

forensic chemist to the court.

As long as the chain of custody of the

seized substance was clearly

established not to have been brokenand that the prosecution did not fail to

identify properly the drugs seized, it is

not indispensable that each and every

person who came into possession of

the drugs should take the witness

stand.

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY

A presumption of regularity in the

performance of official duty applies

when nothing in the record suggests

that the law enforcers deviated from

the standard conduct of official duty

required by law; where the official act

is irregular on its face, the presumption

cannot arise.

ENTRAPMENT / INSTIGATION

A buy-bust operation is a form of

entrapment which in recent years has

been accepted as a valid and effectivemode of apprehending drug pushers. In

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/jul2001/gr_130707_2001.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/jul2001/gr_130707_2001.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_143842_2003.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_143842_2003.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_143842_2003.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_143842_2003.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/jul2001/gr_130707_2001.html

7/27/2019 Dangerous Drugs Case Doctrines

2/3

a buy-bust operation, the idea to

commit a crime originates from the

offender, without anybody inducing or

prodding him to commit the offense.

Instigation is the means by which the

accused is lured into the commission of

the offense charged in order to

prosecute him. On the other hand,entrapment is the employment of such

ways and means for the purpose of

trapping or capturing a lawbreaker.

The general rule is that it is no defense

to the perpetrator of a crime that

facilities for its commission were

purposely placed in his way, or that the

criminal act was done at the decoy

solicitation of persons seeking to

expose the criminal, or that detectivesfeigning complicity in the act were

present and apparently assisting in its

commission. Especially is this true in

that class of cases where the offense is

one of a kind habitually committed,

and the solicitation merely furnishes

evidence of a course of conduct. Mere

deception by the detective will not

shield defendant, if the offense was

committed by him, free from the

influence or instigation of the

detective.

One form of entrapment is the buy-

bust operation. It is legal and has been

proved to be an effective method of

apprehending drug peddlers, provided

due regard to constitutional and legal

safeguards is undertaken.12

A police officers act of soliciting drugs

from the accused during a buy-bust

operation, or what is known as a"decoy solicitation," is not prohibited

by law and does not render the buy-

bust operation invalid.

In People v. Ganguso,38

it has been held

that prior surveillance is not a

prerequisite for the validity of an

entrapment operation, especially when

the buy-bust team members were

accompanied to the scene by their

informant.

The non-presentation of the poseur-

buyer is fatal only if there is no other

eyewitness to the illicit transaction.

The presentation of the boodle money,

as a general rule, is not indispensable in

the prosecution of a drug case,

OBJECTIVE TEST

In determining the credibility of

prosecution witnesses regarding the

conduct of buy-bust operation, the

"objective test," as laid down in People

v. Doria,28

is utilized.

The "objective" test in buy-bust

operations demands that the details of

the purported transaction must be

clearly and adequately shown. This

must start from the initial contact

between the poseur-buyer and the

pusher, the offer to purchase, the

promise or payment of the

consideration until the consummation

of the sale by the delivery of the illegal

drug subject of the sale. The manner by

which the initial contact was made,

whether or not through an informant,

the offer to purchase the drug, the

payment of the "buy-bust" money, and

the delivery of the illegal drug, whether

to the informant alone or the policeofficer, must be the subject of strict

scrutiny by courts to insure that law-

abiding citizens are not unlawfully

induced to commit an offense.

Prosecutions of cases for violation of

the Dangerous Drugs Act arising from

buy-bust operations largely depend on

the credibility of the police officers who

conducted the same.

SUBJECTIVE TEST - "subjective" or

"origin of intent" test laid down

in Sorrells v. United States[31]

to

determine whether entrapment

actually occurred. The focus of the

inquiry is on the accused's

predisposition to commit the offense

charged, his state of mind and

inclination before his initial exposure to

government agents. All relevant factssuch as the accused's mental and

character traits, his past offenses,

activities, his eagerness in committing

the crime, his reputation, etc., are

considered to assess his state of mind

before the crime.[33]

The predisposition

test emphasizes the accused's

propensity to commit the offense

rather than the officer's

misconduct[34]

and reflects an attempt

to draw a line between a "trap for the

unwary innocent and the trap for the

unwary criminal."

Adopting the "objective" approach has

not precluded us from likewise applying

the "subjective" test. At the same

time, however, examining the conduct

of the police should not disable courts

into ignoring the accused's

predisposition to commit the crime. If

there is overwhelming evidence of

habitual delinquency, recidivism orplain criminal proclivity, then this must

also be considered. Courts should look

at all factors to determine the

predisposition of an accused to commit

an offense in so far as they are relevant

to determine the validity of the defense

of inducement.

FRAME-UP

Like the defense of alibi, frame-up is an

allegation that can easily be

concocted. For this claim to prosper,

the defense must adduce clear and

convincing evidence to overcome the

presumption of regularity of official

acts of government officials.26

Absent

any proof of motive to falsely accuse

him of such a grave offense, the

presumption of regularity in the

performance of official duty and thefindings of the trial court with respect

to the credibility of witnesses shall

prevail over that of the accused-

appellant.

SECTION 21 PROCEDURES

Failure by the buy-bust team to comply

with section 21 did not prevent the

presumption of regularity in the

performance of duty from applying.

The procedure is a matter strictly

between the Dangerous Drugs Board

and the arresting officers and is totally

irrelevant to the prosecution of the

criminal case for the reason that the

commission of the crime of illegal sale

of a prohibited drug is considered

consummated once the sale or

transaction is established and the

prosecution thereof is not underminedby the failure of the arresting officers

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_184805_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_184805_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_184805_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_186134_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_186134_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_186134_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_175940_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_175940_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_175940_2008.html#fnt28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125299.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125299.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125299.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125299.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125299.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125299.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125299.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125299.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125299.htm#_edn34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125299.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125299.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/125299.htm#_edn31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_175940_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_186134_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_184805_2010.html#fnt12

7/27/2019 Dangerous Drugs Case Doctrines

3/3