Strict Compliance with Witness Requirements is Essential for Valid Drug Seizures

People v. Jeffrey Fayo y Rubio, G.R. No. 239887, October 02, 2019

In the bustling streets of Pasig City, a routine buy-bust operation aimed at curbing drug trafficking turned into a legal battleground. The case of Jeffrey Fayo y Rubio, accused of illegal drug sale and possession, hinges on a critical aspect of Philippine law: the requirement for witnesses during drug seizures. This case underscores the importance of procedural integrity in ensuring justice, highlighting how the absence of proper witnesses can lead to the acquittal of accused individuals.

Jeffrey Fayo was charged with selling and possessing shabu, a dangerous drug, following a buy-bust operation on May 27, 2015. The central legal question was whether the police followed the mandatory procedures for handling seized drugs, specifically the presence of required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the evidence.

The Legal Context of Drug Seizure Procedures

In the Philippines, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165), as amended by RA 10640, sets strict guidelines for handling seized drugs. Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that seized items be inventoried and photographed at the place of seizure or the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. This must be done in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media.

The term corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, which in drug cases is the dangerous drug itself. The law aims to prevent planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug, ensuring the integrity of evidence from the moment of seizure. The presence of these witnesses acts as an insulating presence, safeguarding against potential abuses during the operation.

For instance, imagine a scenario where a police officer seizes drugs from a suspect. Without the required witnesses present during the immediate inventory and photographing, there is a risk that the drugs could be tampered with or even planted, casting doubt on the evidence’s reliability in court.

The Case of Jeffrey Fayo: A Chronological Journey

On May 27, 2015, a buy-bust operation was planned against Jeffrey Fayo, a known drug pusher in Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City. PO1 Jonathan Bueno acted as the poseur-buyer, using a marked one thousand-peso bill to purchase shabu from Fayo. After the transaction, the police apprehended Fayo, who allegedly tried to reach for a gun and grenade.

The police then took Fayo to the Barangay Hall of Manggahan for the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, rather than at the place of seizure or the nearest police station. Notably, no representative from the NPS or media was present during this process.

Fayo denied the charges, claiming he was a victim of a traffic altercation and subsequent framing by the police. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found the police testimonies credible, convicting Fayo of illegal drug sale and possession.

However, the Supreme Court reversed these convictions, citing noncompliance with Section 21 of RA 9165. The Court emphasized:

“The presence of the required witnesses at the time of the inventory and photographing of the seized evidence at the place of seizure or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team is mandatory.”

The Court further noted:

“The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and ‘calling them in’ to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Fayo was based on the police’s failure to justify their noncompliance with these mandatory procedures.

Practical Implications and Key Lessons

This ruling sets a precedent for future drug cases, emphasizing that strict adherence to Section 21 of RA 9165 is non-negotiable. Law enforcement agencies must ensure the presence of the required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs to maintain the integrity of the evidence.

For individuals and businesses, this case highlights the importance of understanding their rights during police operations. If faced with a similar situation, they should insist on the presence of the required witnesses and document any procedural lapses.

Key Lessons:

• Police must strictly follow the procedures outlined in RA 9165 for drug seizures.
• The absence of required witnesses can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
• Individuals should be aware of their rights and the legal requirements for drug seizures.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of having witnesses during drug seizures?

The presence of witnesses ensures the integrity of the seized drugs, preventing tampering or planting of evidence.

Can a drug case be dismissed if the police fail to follow Section 21 of RA 9165?

Yes, noncompliance with Section 21 can lead to the dismissal of a drug case if the prosecution cannot justify the lapses.

What should I do if I am involved in a drug seizure operation?

Insist on the presence of the required witnesses and document any procedural lapses by the police.

Is it possible to challenge a drug seizure if the inventory was not done at the place of seizure?

Yes, the law specifies that the inventory should be done at the place of seizure or the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.

What are the consequences for law enforcement if they fail to comply with Section 21?

Failure to comply can result in the acquittal of the accused and may lead to disciplinary action against the officers involved.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and drug-related cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.