In drug-related cases, procedural missteps can have severe consequences. The Supreme Court in People v. Abdullah Dalupang, emphasized the critical importance of strictly adhering to the three-witness rule in drug cases, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to the failure of drug enforcement agents to comply with this mandatory requirement. This ruling underscores that any deviation from established protocols in handling evidence, particularly the presence of required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of seized items, can compromise the integrity of the evidence and undermine the prosecution’s case. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the rights of the accused by ensuring meticulous compliance with legal procedures during drug operations.

When a Buy-Bust Goes Bust: Did Police Procedures Fail?

The case of People of the Philippines v. Abdullah Dalupang originated from a buy-bust operation conducted on May 1, 2014, where Abdullah Dalupang was apprehended for allegedly selling and possessing shabu, a prohibited drug. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Dalupang sold a sachet of shabu to an undercover agent and was later found in possession of more sachets during the arrest. However, a critical point of contention arose concerning the inventory and photographing of the seized items, which is a crucial step in preserving the integrity of the evidence. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, mandates that after the seizure of drugs, an inventory and photograph must be taken immediately in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. These witnesses are required to sign the inventory and receive a copy.

During Dalupang’s trial, it was revealed that the inventory was conducted with only two witnesses present: a media representative and an elected barangay official. The absence of the DOJ representative raised questions about whether the procedural safeguards enshrined in R.A. No. 9165 were adequately followed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially convicted Dalupang, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the focus shifted to the procedural lapses during the handling of the evidence and whether these lapses warranted an acquittal.

The Supreme Court, in its evaluation, highlighted the mandatory nature of the three-witness rule as stipulated in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). The law states:

SEC. 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, 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. (Emphasis supplied)

The IRR further emphasizes this requirement, reinforcing that the inventory and photographing must occur in the presence of the specified witnesses. The absence of one of these witnesses casts doubt on the integrity of the process. While the IRR does provide a caveat allowing for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that such grounds existed and that earnest efforts were made to secure the presence of all required witnesses. The Court referenced People v. Ramos, emphasizing the need for genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses. A mere statement of unavailability, without demonstrating serious attempts to find alternative representatives, is insufficient. In People v. Lim, the Court outlined a mandatory policy for drug cases, stating that sworn statements from officers must detail compliance with Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165. If non-compliance occurs, officers must justify the reasons and the steps taken to preserve the evidence’s integrity.

In the case at hand, the affidavits provided by the PDEA agents stated that the decision to proceed to the police station was due to security reasons and the difficulty in finding witnesses at the crime scene. However, the Court found this explanation insufficient. The affidavits did not provide specific details about the efforts made to secure the presence of the required witnesses. The agents had the opportunity to prepare for the buy-bust operation and ensure compliance with R.A. No. 9165. The Supreme Court emphasized that failing to meet the three-witness rule raises substantial doubts about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

The Supreme Court underscored the necessity of strict compliance with the procedural requirements outlined in R.A. No. 9165. This emphasis stems from the recognition that drug-related offenses carry severe penalties, and therefore, the rights of the accused must be scrupulously protected. When law enforcement officers fail to adhere to these procedural safeguards, the integrity of the evidence is called into question, potentially leading to wrongful convictions.

Building on this principle, the Court cited People v. Silayan, where an acquittal was warranted due to the police officers’ failure to comply with the three-witness rule. The consistent application of this standard reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding due process and ensuring that convictions are based on solid, reliable evidence. The ruling in People v. Dalupang serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies about the importance of meticulously following the prescribed procedures in drug cases.

The implications of this decision are significant for future drug-related cases. It reinforces the importance of proper training and adherence to protocol by law enforcement officers. It also highlights the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable evidence. The ruling serves as a critical check on potential abuses in drug enforcement operations. This decision promotes greater accountability among law enforcement officers, ensuring that they are diligent in their efforts to comply with the law. This, in turn, can enhance public trust in the justice system and ensure that the rights of individuals are protected.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Abdullah Dalupang underscores the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in R.A. No. 9165. The ruling highlights the mandatory nature of the three-witness rule and the prosecution’s burden to justify any non-compliance. This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable evidence, serving as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow prescribed procedures in drug cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the failure of law enforcement to comply with the three-witness rule during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs warranted the acquittal of the accused. The three-witness rule, mandated by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, requires the presence of a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
What is the three-witness rule?	The three-witness rule is a requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which stipulates that during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs, there must be three witnesses present: a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. These witnesses are required to sign the inventory and receive a copy of it.
Why is the three-witness rule important?	The three-witness rule is important because it ensures transparency and accountability in the handling of seized drugs, reducing the risk of tampering, planting of evidence, or other irregularities. It provides a safeguard to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of the evidence presented in court.
What happens if the three-witness rule is not followed?	If the three-witness rule is not followed, the prosecution must provide justifiable grounds for the non-compliance. If no justifiable reason is provided or if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are compromised, it can lead to the inadmissibility of the evidence and potentially result in the acquittal of the accused.
What are considered justifiable grounds for not complying with the three-witness rule?	Justifiable grounds for not complying with the three-witness rule typically involve situations where it was impossible or impractical to secure the presence of all three witnesses despite earnest efforts to do so. This may include circumstances where the safety of the apprehending team was at risk or if the witnesses were unavailable despite diligent attempts to contact them.
What is the role of the prosecution in these cases?	The prosecution bears the burden of proving that there were justifiable grounds for not complying with the three-witness rule and that earnest efforts were made to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses. They must also demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved despite the non-compliance.
What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted Abdullah Dalupang, holding that the failure of the PDEA agents to comply with the three-witness rule cast doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The Court found that the affidavits provided by the agents did not sufficiently explain why the required number of witnesses was not present during the inventory.
What is the main takeaway from this case?	The main takeaway is the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in drug cases, particularly the three-witness rule. Law enforcement agencies must ensure they follow the prescribed procedures to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the evidence.

The Supreme Court’s firm stance in People v. Abdullah Dalupang serves as a critical reminder to law enforcement agencies about the necessity of complying with procedural safeguards in drug cases. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of the accused. By strictly enforcing the three-witness rule, the Court aims to prevent abuses and ensure that convictions are based on reliable evidence. This decision not only impacts the specific case but also sets a precedent that promotes greater accountability and transparency in drug enforcement operations, fostering public trust in the justice system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Dalupang, G.R. No. 235469, October 02, 2019