Two more drug pushers convicted by the trial courts have been acquitted and ordered released from detention by the Supreme Court (SC) due to the lapses by the police in the handling and inventory of the seized prohibited drugs, and the failure of government prosecutors to justify the procedural omissions to comply with the law.
Acquitted and ordered released from jail, unless being held for another legal cause, were Monica D. Jimenez of Putatan, Muntinlupa City, and Federico A. Seneres Jr. of Taguig City. They were convicted by the regional trial courts (RTCs) and the guilty verdicts were upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA).
The two separate decisions dated October 15 and November 5 in the cases of Jimenez and Seneres Jr., respectively, were both written by Justice Diosdado M. Peralta.
Last October 8, the SC also acquitted and ordered the release from jail of Jerome A. Pascua, alias “Ogie,” of Laoag City in view of the same lapses committed by the police in compliance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The decision in Pascua case was written by Justice Mariano C. del Castillo.
Case records showed that Jimenez, alias “Monik,” was arrested on Aug. 20, 2009 during a buy-bust operation conducted by the Muntinlupa City police. Seized from her was 0.03 grams of shabu.
She was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 on “sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals.”
On Jan. 5, 2015, the Muntinlupa City RTC convicted Jimenez and sentenced her to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000. On July 22, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. The case reached the SC on appeal.
In resolving the issue, the SC said the conviction or acquittal of persons arrested during buy-bust operations and charged with selling or possession of illegal drugs depends greatly on the compliance by the police and government prosecutors with Section 21 of RA 9165.
It said that “under the original provision of Section 21, after seizure and confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending team was required to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph of the same in the presence of ( 1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) a representative from the media and (3) the DOJ, and ( 4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”
The SC said “it is assumed that the presence of these three persons will guarantee ‘against planting of evidence and frame-up,’ i.e., they are ‘necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity.’”
As amended, the SC explained that “the amendatory law mandates that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”
In Jimenez’s case, the SC said the old provisions of Section 21 should apply since the alleged crime was committed before their amendment by RA No. 10640.
“In this case, it is undeniable that during the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items, there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ, and there was also no elected public official to witness the said inventory.”
Based on certifications, “there were only two members of DAPCO (Drug Abuse and Prosecution Control Office) who signed the inventory and who were not even present during the buy-bust operation, and the records are also bereft of any indication as to the reason why the witnesses required under the law were dispensed with.”
Citing its recent decision, the SC said “it must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained” due to reasons cited in the law, and “a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced.”
“Certainly, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that, during the proceedings before the trial court, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law” it said.
It stressed that “the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item.”
“Absent, therefore, any justifiable reason in this case for the non-compliance of Section 21 of RA No. 9165, the identity of the seized item has not been established beyond reasonable doubt,” the SC ruled as it acquitted Jimenez and ordered her release from detention.
Seneres Jr., on the other hand, was found guilty by the trial court of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in a decision handed down by the Taguig City RTC on Dec. 3, 2015. He was arrested in a buy-bust operation and seized from him was 0.87 gram of shabu on Sept. 14, 2011 in a mall in Taguig City.
After trial, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of P500,000. The guilty verdict was affirmed by the CA on Nov. 16, 2016.
At the SC on appeal, the High Court found that in the Seneres Jr. case, there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ, and there was no elected public official present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items when the alleged shabu was seized from him. (Rey Panaligan)