ASG Law

Tag: insulating witnesses

  • Failure to Ensure Witness Presence Leads to Acquittal in Drug Cases: Protecting Rights

    In People v. Rebuton, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the chain of custody rule in drug cases, particularly the requirement that insulating witnesses be present at or near the place of apprehension during a buy-bust operation. This decision highlights the critical importance of strictly adhering to procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused and prevent evidence tampering. The Court emphasized that the absence of insulating witnesses during the crucial moments of arrest and seizure created a significant gap in the chain of custody, casting reasonable doubt on the integrity of the evidence.

    A Thirty-Minute Delay: Did Absence of Witnesses Spoil the Drug Case?

    The case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against Diosdado Rebuton and Marilou Rebutazo for alleged violations of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Rebuton and Rebutazo were charged with the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, and drug paraphernalia. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Rebuton sold shabu to a poseur buyer, PO3 Pedeglorio, while Rebutazo allegedly participated in the transaction. Subsequently, they were arrested inside Rebuton’s house, where additional sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia were found.

    However, the defense contested the validity of the arrest and the integrity of the evidence, claiming that the police officers planted the drugs and paraphernalia. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and acquitted the accused. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of insulating witnesses is crucial to ensure the integrity of the seized drugs. According to the Court in *Nisperos v. People*, the witnesses must be present “at or near” the place of apprehension.

    “Here, none of the insulating witnesses were present at the time of the apprehension of the accused nor were they at or near the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted. Based on the testimony of the police officers, the insulating witnesses were only called in after the buy-bust or after the accused were already apprehended. In addition, the insulating witnesses arrived after approximately 30 minutes from the time of apprehension and after SPO3 Germodo had already allegedly marked the evidence seized from the accused and those recovered on the table inside Rebuton’s room.”

    The Court noted that the insulating witnesses, who are meant to safeguard against evidence planting and ensure transparency, arrived approximately 30 minutes after the accused were apprehended and after the police had already marked the evidence. This delay, the Court reasoned, created a significant gap in the chain of custody, raising doubts about whether the evidence presented in court was the same evidence seized from the accused. The chain of custody rule is paramount in drug cases. Its purpose is to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, preventing tampering, loss, or substitution of evidence.

    In drug-related offenses, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items. This includes the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs, the turnover of the drugs to the investigating officer, the transfer of the drugs to the forensic chemist for examination, and the submission of the marked drugs to the court. Any break in this chain, without justifiable explanation, can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence and warrant an acquittal. The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide any explanation for the absence of the insulating witnesses during the buy-bust operation. The absence of these witnesses at the time of apprehension constituted a serious lapse in procedure that could not be overlooked.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.” The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to overcome this presumption, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. The Court held that the procedural lapses in the case created reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the Court acquitted both Rebutazo and Rebuton, highlighting that Rebuton, despite not filing a separate appeal, benefited from Rebutazo’s successful motion for reconsideration under Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

    “Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. — (a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter[.]”

    This provision allows a co-accused who did not appeal to benefit from a favorable judgment if the grounds for the acquittal or reversal of conviction apply equally to them. This decision serves as a reminder of the strict requirements of the chain of custody rule in drug cases. It underscores the necessity for law enforcement officers to ensure the presence of insulating witnesses during buy-bust operations to safeguard the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the other evidence presented by the prosecution. This ruling reinforces the importance of procedural due process in criminal cases and the need for law enforcement officers to adhere to established protocols to ensure fair and just outcomes.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, particularly regarding the presence of insulating witnesses during the buy-bust operation.
    Who are insulating witnesses? Insulating witnesses are individuals from the media, the Department of Justice, and local barangay officials. Their presence is intended to safeguard against evidence planting and ensure transparency.
    Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases? The chain of custody is crucial because it ensures the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, preventing tampering, loss, or substitution of evidence from the time of seizure to presentation in court.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling? The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the chain of custody rule, specifically the absence of insulating witnesses at or near the place of apprehension.
    What is the significance of Section 21 of R.A. 9165? Section 21 of R.A. 9165 outlines the procedures for the custody and handling of seized drugs, including the requirement of inventory and photograph taking in the presence of insulating witnesses.
    What is the effect of an appeal by one of several accused? Under Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an appeal by one accused can benefit co-accused who did not appeal, provided the appellate court’s judgment is favorable and applicable to them.
    How did the 30-minute delay impact the case? The 30-minute delay in the arrival of the insulating witnesses created a gap in the chain of custody, raising doubts about whether the evidence presented in court was the same evidence seized from the accused.
    What is the presumption of innocence? The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle in criminal law, stating that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring strict compliance with procedural safeguards in drug cases. The presence of insulating witnesses and adherence to the chain of custody rule are vital to maintaining the integrity of evidence and preventing wrongful convictions. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for law enforcement agencies to diligently follow established procedures and respect the constitutional rights of individuals during drug-related operations.

    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 of the Philippines vs. Diosdado Rebuton y Melendez a.k.a. “Dado” and Marilou Rebutazo y Encabo a.k.a. “Loi,”, G.R. No. 224581, October 09, 2024

  • Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: Why Witness Credentials Matter

    The Importance of Insulating Witness Credentials in Drug Cases

    G.R. No. 262686, October 11, 2023

    Imagine being arrested for a drug offense based on evidence that wasn’t properly documented or witnessed. What if the people who were supposed to ensure the integrity of the evidence weren’t who they claimed to be? This scenario highlights the critical importance of the chain of custody rule in drug cases and the stringent requirements for insulating witnesses.

    This case, *People of the Philippines vs. Gerald Flores*, underscores the necessity of meticulously following the chain of custody procedures and verifying the credentials of insulating witnesses. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to critical inconsistencies and a lack of credible evidence regarding the mandatory insulating witnesses’ presence and identities during the inventory of seized drugs.

    Understanding the Chain of Custody and Insulating Witnesses

    The chain of custody refers to the chronological documentation of evidence, showing its seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence, preventing contamination, substitution, or alteration.

    In drug cases, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as amended, mandates specific procedures for handling seized drugs. A crucial part of this process involves the presence of “insulating witnesses” – individuals who observe the inventory and photographing of the seized items to safeguard against evidence planting or manipulation.

    Section 21, paragraph 1 of RA. No. 9165, as amended by Section 1 of R.A. No. 10640, states:

    (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of [sic] these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

    These witnesses typically include an elected public official and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. Their presence aims to provide transparency and prevent potential abuses by law enforcement.

    For example, imagine a scenario where police officers arrest someone for drug possession. To comply with the law, they must immediately conduct an inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused and the insulating witnesses. If these witnesses aren’t present, or if their identities aren’t properly verified, the integrity of the evidence could be questioned in court.

    The Case of People vs. Flores: A Detailed Examination

    In this case, Gerald Flores and his co-accused were apprehended in a buy-bust operation. They were charged with the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision with slight modifications.

    However, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings, acquitting the accused due to significant flaws in the prosecution’s case. Here’s a breakdown of the key issues:

    • Inconsistent Timelines: The Joint Affidavit of Apprehension indicated the buy-bust operation started at 9:00 p.m., yet the Inventory of Seized Items also listed the time as 9:00 p.m. This raised doubts about when the inventory was actually conducted.
    • Questionable Witness Credentials: The signature of the media representative on the inventory form did not match the signature on his identification card. Moreover, there was no verifiable proof that the barangay kagawad (elected public official) was indeed a legitimate official.
    • Lack of Immediate Availability: The insulating witnesses arrived at the police station at least 15 minutes after being contacted, indicating they were not readily available as required by law.

    The Court emphasized the importance of proving the identities and credentials of the mandatory insulating witnesses, stating that it is incumbent upon the prosecution to do so. This is essential to affirm their presence and the validity of their participation in the inventory process.

    “[I]t was thus incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the identities and credentials of the mandatory insulating witnesses, along with their presence at the inventory of the confiscated items.”

    The Court also referenced People v. Ordiz, emphasizing that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police officers cannot override the constitutional right to be presumed innocent.

    “[T]he presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.”

    Practical Implications and Key Lessons

    This ruling serves as a stark reminder to law enforcement agencies about the critical importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule and ensuring the credibility of insulating witnesses. Failure to comply with these requirements can lead to the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the evidence presented.

    For individuals facing drug charges, this case highlights the importance of scrutinizing the prosecution’s evidence and raising any doubts about the chain of custody or the identities of the insulating witnesses.

    Key Lessons:

    • Verify Witness Credentials: Law enforcement must ensure that insulating witnesses are who they claim to be by verifying their identities and credentials.
    • Ensure Immediate Availability: Insulating witnesses should be readily available to witness the inventory immediately after seizure.
    • Maintain Accurate Documentation: Accurate and consistent documentation of the chain of custody is crucial for the admissibility of evidence in court.
    • Burden of Proof: The prosecution bears the burden of proving compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, beyond reasonable doubt.

    Hypothetical Example: Imagine a situation where police officers conduct a buy-bust operation but fail to secure the presence of a legitimate media representative or elected public official during the inventory. The defense attorney could argue that the chain of custody was compromised, potentially leading to the suppression of evidence and the acquittal of the accused.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is the chain of custody in drug cases?

    A: The chain of custody refers to the documented process of tracking evidence from the point of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring its integrity and preventing tampering.

    Q: Who are insulating witnesses, and why are they important?

    A: Insulating witnesses are individuals (usually an elected public official and a media or National Prosecution Service representative) who observe the inventory and photographing of seized drugs to prevent evidence planting or manipulation. They provide transparency and credibility to the process.

    Q: What happens if the insulating witnesses aren’t present during the inventory?

    A: The absence of insulating witnesses can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence and potentially lead to the suppression of evidence or the acquittal of the accused, especially if there’s no justifiable reason for their absence.

    Q: What should I do if I’m arrested for a drug offense?

    A: Immediately seek legal counsel. An attorney can review the circumstances of your arrest, the evidence against you, and ensure that your rights are protected.

    Q: What evidence can a defense attorney use to challenge the chain of custody?

    A: A defense attorney can challenge the chain of custody by pointing out inconsistencies in documentation, lack of proper witness credentials, or any other irregularities that raise doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

    Q: Does a minor error in following chain of custody automatically result in a dismissal of a case?

    A: Not necessarily. The prosecution can offer justifiable grounds for the non-compliance. However, the prosecution must also show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

    Q: What if it was difficult to find qualified insulating witnesses?

    A: Law enforcement officers must exert reasonable effort to secure the presence of qualified insulating witnesses. Documenting these efforts and the reasons for any difficulties encountered can help demonstrate compliance with the law.

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

  • Broken Chains: Safeguarding Rights in Drug Possession Cases

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted petitioners CICL XXX, CICL YYY, Jed Barba, and Jonathan Solina of illegal drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia, emphasizing the stringent adherence to the chain of custody rule. The Court found that the police officers’ failure to properly mark, inventory, and photograph the seized items, coupled with the absence of required witnesses, compromised the integrity of the evidence. This decision underscores the importance of strictly following procedural safeguards to protect individual rights in drug cases, ensuring that law enforcement’s actions are beyond reproach.

    From “Shabu Hotel” to Acquittal: Did Police Lapses Doom the Drug Case?

    The case revolves around an anti-criminality operation conducted by police officers on March 8, 2006, in an area known for drug sales. Acting on information about a potential “pot session,” the officers entered a room and allegedly caught CICL XXX, CICL YYY, Jed Barba, and Jonathan Solina in possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The ensuing legal battle questioned the validity of the arrest, the admissibility of evidence, and whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and paraphernalia. The Court, in its analysis, underscored the high standard of proof required in criminal cases. According to Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, a successful prosecution for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs requires proving that the accused possessed a prohibited drug, the possession was unauthorized, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.

    Similarly, the prosecution of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia hinges on demonstrating that the accused possessed equipment or paraphernalia intended for using dangerous drugs, and such possession was unauthorized. While the police officers testified that they caught the petitioners in flagrante delicto, the Court found significant lapses in the handling of evidence that undermined the prosecution’s case.

    The Court emphasized that, even with the presumption that police officers regularly perform their duties, deviations from established protocols in handling drug cases negate this presumption. Central to this case is Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165, which outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs and paraphernalia:

    Section 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 persons 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)

    This provision is further detailed in Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165. The key requirements are immediate physical inventory and photography of the seized items in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.

    The Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of these inventory and photography requirements to ensure the identity of the seized drugs and to safeguard against potential abuses by law enforcement. Here, the police officers failed to mark, inventory, or photograph the confiscated items immediately after the seizure. While a video recording of the accused was taken at the basketball court, the prosecution failed to present this footage as evidence. The absence of these crucial steps, mandated by RA 9165, cast serious doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti.

    Moreover, the Supreme Court found that no insulating witnesses were present to affirm the proper confiscation and recording of the illegal drugs and paraphernalia. The Court underscored that the prosecution bears the burden of justifying any non-compliance with the required procedure. Failure to provide meritorious grounds for such non-compliance, especially when coupled with a failure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, can be fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Court also highlighted the importance of establishing a clear chain of custody, which involves:

    1. Seizure and marking of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer;
    2. Turnover of the illegal drug to the investigating officer;
    3. Turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist; and
    4. Turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug to the court.

    In this case, the Court found several irregularities in the chain of custody. The apprehending officer did not mark the seized items immediately after seizure. Instead, the investigating officer, who was not present during the seizure, marked the evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish a clear turnover of the seized items to the crime laboratory and to account for the individual who received the specimens. These irregularities further weakened the prosecution’s case.

    In analyzing the charge of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, the Court drew attention to the interplay between RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). Although Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 and Section 21 (a) of the IRR specifically mention drugs when discussing marking, inventory, and photography, the Court emphasized that this should not exclude other listed items, such as instruments/paraphernalia.

    The Court stated, that the other paragraphs concerning Section 21 discuss the proper procedure in handling all listed items, not just the drugs confiscated. It is a basic rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be interpreted together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. The law must not be read in truncated parts; its provisions must be read in relation to the whole law. The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expression, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole.

    Moreover, the absence of Jonathan’s signature on the petition’s verification portion did not prevent the Court from extending the benefits of the acquittal to him. As outlined in Section 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, an appeal by any of several accused throws the whole case open for review, allowing a favorable judgment to benefit co-accused who did not appeal. Consequently, the Court acquitted Jonathan of both illegal possession charges under Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, acquitting all the accused based on reasonable doubt due to the broken chain of custody and compromised integrity of the confiscated items. This decision underscores the critical importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect individual rights and ensure fair trials.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the petitioners were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and paraphernalia, given the alleged procedural lapses in handling the evidence.
    What is the chain of custody rule? The chain of custody rule refers to the documented and unbroken transfer of evidence from the time of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring its integrity and preventing tampering. This includes proper marking, inventory, storage, and handling of the evidence.
    What is the significance of Section 21 of RA 9165? Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the mandatory procedures for handling confiscated drugs and paraphernalia, including immediate inventory, photography, and the presence of required witnesses. Compliance with these procedures is crucial to ensure the admissibility of evidence in court.
    Why were the accused acquitted in this case? The accused were acquitted due to the prosecution’s failure to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the police officers did not follow the required procedures in handling the seized items, leading to a broken chain of custody and compromised evidence.
    What is the role of insulating witnesses in drug cases? Insulating witnesses, such as representatives from the media, the Department of Justice, and elected public officials, are required to be present during the inventory and photography of seized drugs to ensure transparency and prevent planting or tampering of evidence.
    What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165? Failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, without justifiable grounds, can render the seized items inadmissible as evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. The prosecution must demonstrate that serious efforts were made to comply with the requirements and that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
    Does an acquittal benefit all the accused, even those who did not appeal? Yes, under Section 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, an acquittal in a criminal case can benefit co-accused who did not appeal, even if their conviction had already become final. This is because an appeal throws the whole case open for review.
    How did the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 affect this case? Although RA 10640 amended Section 21 of RA 9165, the original provisions of RA 9165 applied to this case since the incident occurred before the amendment’s effectivity. The amendment altered the requirements for insulating witnesses but did not change the fundamental need for strict compliance with chain of custody procedures.

    This landmark decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding due process and safeguarding individual rights, particularly in drug-related cases. It serves as a crucial reminder to law enforcement agencies to strictly adhere to established protocols to ensure the integrity of evidence and the fairness of legal proceedings.

    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: CICL XXX, et al. vs. People, G.R. No. 230964, March 02, 2022

  • Ensuring Fairness: The Critical Role of Witness Presence in Drug Seizure Cases in the Philippines

    The Importance of Adhering to Legal Procedures in Drug Cases

    People of the Philippines v. Helenmie P. Abueva, G.R. No. 243633, July 15, 2020

    In the bustling streets of Parañaque City, a routine buy-bust operation led to the arrest of Helenmie P. Abueva on charges of selling methamphetamine, commonly known as shabu. Yet, what seemed like a straightforward case took a dramatic turn when the Supreme Court of the Philippines acquitted Abueva, citing critical lapses in the procedure of handling the seized drugs. This ruling underscores the paramount importance of due process in drug-related cases, a principle that safeguards the rights of the accused and ensures the integrity of the judicial system.

    The case revolved around the alleged violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The central legal question was whether the apprehending officers complied with the mandatory requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs, particularly the presence of insulating witnesses during the seizure and inventory process.

    Understanding the Legal Framework

    The Philippine legal system places a high value on due process, especially in criminal cases where the stakes are high. In drug cases, the law mandates specific procedures to ensure the integrity of the evidence and to prevent abuses such as planting or tampering with evidence. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, outlines the steps that must be followed after the seizure of dangerous drugs:

    (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof…

    This provision aims to insulate the process from potential abuses by requiring the presence of witnesses who can attest to the integrity of the seized items. The term ‘insulating witnesses’ refers to the elected public official and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or media, who serve as impartial observers during the critical stages of the drug seizure process.

    For instance, imagine a scenario where a police officer seizes drugs from a suspect. Without the presence of these witnesses, there’s a risk that the drugs could be switched or tampered with, undermining the case against the accused.

    The Journey of Helenmie P. Abueva’s Case

    On July 9, 2015, Helenmie P. Abueva, known as ‘Inday’, was arrested during a buy-bust operation in Parañaque City. The operation was initiated based on a tip from an informant about Abueva’s alleged drug activities. The buy-bust team, led by Police Senior Inspector Paulo Paquito Tampol, executed the operation, with SPO2 Fercival Españo acting as the poseur-buyer.

    After the arrest, the team proceeded to the barangay hall, hoping to secure the presence of the required witnesses. However, their efforts to contact a representative from the Department of Justice and the Barangay Chairman failed. After waiting for 30 minutes, they moved to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) office, where they conducted the inventory and photography in the presence of a media representative but without an elected public official.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) initially found Abueva guilty, affirming that the prosecution had established the elements of the crime and that the chain of custody was intact. However, the Supreme Court took a different stance. The Court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165:

    Without the insulating presence of the required witnesses during the seizure and marking of the dangerous drug, the evils of switching, ‘planting’ or contamination of the evidence rear their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of such seizure and of the corpus delicti.

    The Supreme Court noted several critical failures:

    • The absence of the required witnesses at the time of arrest and seizure.
    • The lack of an elected public official during the inventory and photography.
    • The decision to move the inventory to the SAID-SOTG office without a justifiable reason.

    These lapses led the Supreme Court to acquit Abueva on the grounds of reasonable doubt, highlighting the necessity of following the law’s procedural mandates.

    Practical Implications and Key Lessons

    This ruling sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies: adherence to legal procedures is non-negotiable. The absence of insulating witnesses can lead to the acquittal of the accused, even when the evidence appears strong. For individuals facing drug charges, this case underscores the importance of scrutinizing the prosecution’s adherence to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

    Businesses and property owners involved in areas prone to drug-related activities should be aware of these legal requirements. Ensuring that any security measures or cooperation with law enforcement are conducted within the bounds of the law can protect them from potential legal pitfalls.

    Key Lessons:

    • Always ensure the presence of insulating witnesses during drug seizures.
    • Document any deviations from the legal procedure and provide justifiable reasons.
    • Understand that strict adherence to the law is crucial for the integrity of the evidence and the fairness of the judicial process.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is the purpose of insulating witnesses in drug cases?

    Insulating witnesses, such as elected public officials and representatives from the media or the National Prosecution Service, are required to prevent abuses like planting or tampering with evidence during drug seizures.

    What happens if the police fail to secure these witnesses?

    If the police fail to secure the presence of insulating witnesses, as seen in Abueva’s case, it can lead to the acquittal of the accused due to doubts about the integrity of the seized evidence.

    Can the absence of witnesses be justified?

    Yes, but the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for the absence of witnesses, and the integrity of the evidence must still be preserved.

    What should I do if I’m arrested in a drug-related case?

    Seek legal counsel immediately to review the procedures followed by the police and ensure your rights are protected.

    How can businesses protect themselves from legal issues related to drug enforcement?

    Businesses should cooperate with law enforcement but ensure that any operations on their premises comply with legal procedures, including the presence of insulating witnesses.

    What are the consequences of non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?

    Non-compliance can result in the dismissal of the case against the accused due to doubts about the evidence’s integrity.

    How can I ensure the police follow the correct procedures during a drug seizure?

    Be aware of your rights and the legal requirements. If possible, request the presence of insulating witnesses and document any irregularities.

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

  • Ensuring Integrity in Drug Cases: The Critical Role of Chain of Custody in Philippine Law

    The Importance of Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: A Lesson from the Supreme Court

    People v. Padua, G.R. No. 244287, June 15, 2020

    Imagine a scenario where a person’s freedom hinges on the meticulous handling of evidence. In the Philippines, the integrity of drug-related evidence is paramount, as demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Jemuel Padua. This case underscores the critical importance of the chain of custody in drug prosecutions, a principle that can mean the difference between conviction and acquittal.

    Jemuel Padua was accused of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The central legal question revolved around whether the prosecution could establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, a requirement under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

    Understanding the Legal Framework

    The chain of custody rule is a cornerstone in drug-related cases. It ensures that the evidence presented in court is the same as what was seized from the accused. Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, outlines specific procedures for handling seized drugs, including the presence of insulating witnesses during the inventory and photography of the items.

    Legal terms like corpus delicti—the body of the crime—refer to the physical evidence that proves the crime occurred. In drug cases, the seized drugs themselves constitute the corpus delicti. The law requires that the movement and custody of these drugs be meticulously documented from the moment of seizure until they are presented in court.

    Consider a simple analogy: Imagine a relay race where the baton represents the seized drugs. Each runner, or handler of the evidence, must pass the baton smoothly and without interruption. If the baton is dropped or mishandled, the integrity of the race is compromised. Similarly, any break in the chain of custody can undermine the integrity of the evidence.

    Section 21 of RA 9165 states: “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.”

    Unraveling the Case of Jemuel Padua

    Jemuel Padua’s ordeal began on December 17, 2014, when a buy-bust operation was conducted in Barangay Libis, Binangonan, Rizal. PO1 Zaldy Manigbas, acting as a poseur-buyer, engaged Padua, leading to his arrest and the seizure of three sachets of what was alleged to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.

    Padua’s journey through the legal system saw him convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and later by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court’s review revealed critical flaws in the chain of custody.

    The Supreme Court noted: “In case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance.”

    The Court further emphasized: “The absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, 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.”

    The procedural steps that led to Padua’s acquittal included:

    • The initial seizure and marking of the drugs at the scene.
    • The inventory of the seized items, which was conducted only in the presence of a barangay official, lacking representatives from the media and the National Prosecution Service.
    • The photographing of the items at the police station without any insulating witnesses present.
    • The failure of the operatives to provide any justification for non-compliance with the required procedures.

    These lapses created a significant gap in the chain of custody, leading the Supreme Court to acquit Padua.

    Implications and Practical Advice

    The ruling in People v. Padua has far-reaching implications for future drug cases in the Philippines. It underscores the necessity for law enforcement to strictly adhere to the chain of custody procedures outlined in RA 9165. Failure to do so can result in the acquittal of the accused, even when other evidence might suggest guilt.

    For individuals and businesses, understanding these procedures can be crucial. If you find yourself involved in a drug-related case, either as a defendant or a witness, ensure that the chain of custody is meticulously followed. Document any irregularities and seek legal counsel to challenge any breaches.

    Key Lessons:

    • Always verify the presence of insulating witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized drugs.
    • Challenge any deviations from the required procedures in court.
    • Understand that the presumption of regularity in law enforcement actions can be overturned if irregularities are proven.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is the chain of custody in drug cases?

    The chain of custody refers to the documentation and tracking of evidence from the time it is seized until it is presented in court, ensuring its integrity.

    Why is the presence of insulating witnesses important?

    Insulating witnesses, such as representatives from the media and the National Prosecution Service, help ensure the transparency and integrity of the evidence handling process.

    What happens if the chain of custody is broken?

    A break in the chain of custody can lead to the evidence being deemed inadmissible, potentially resulting in the acquittal of the accused.

    Can the presumption of regularity be challenged?

    Yes, the presumption of regularity can be challenged if there are proven irregularities in the handling of evidence.

    What should I do if I’m involved in a drug case?

    Seek legal counsel immediately to ensure your rights are protected and to challenge any procedural errors.

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

  • Chain of Custody and Reasonable Doubt: Safeguarding Rights in Drug Cases

    The Supreme Court held that failure to comply with the chain of custody rule, particularly the absence of required witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs, raises reasonable doubt and warrants acquittal. This ruling emphasizes the crucial role of procedural safeguards in drug cases, protecting individuals from wrongful convictions. This decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement of the importance of strict adherence to the requirements of Republic Act No. 9165 to ensure the integrity of evidence and protect the constitutional rights of the accused.

    When a Buy-Bust Goes Wrong: Did Police Procedures Protect the Accused?

    This case revolves around the arrest and subsequent conviction of Albert Paran for the alleged sale of marijuana. The prosecution presented evidence indicating a buy-bust operation was conducted based on information received about Paran selling drugs near a high school. SPO2 Briñas, acting as the poseur-buyer, testified to purchasing marijuana from Paran in exchange for a marked P100 bill. Paran, however, denied the allegations, stating he was merely waiting for a ride when apprehended. The critical issue lies in the police’s handling of the seized evidence and whether they adhered to the strict chain of custody requirements mandated by law.

    The procedural requirements for handling seized drugs are outlined in Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This section details the specific steps law enforcement officers must take to ensure the integrity and identity of seized drugs, preventing tampering or substitution. Before its amendment by RA 10640, Section 21 required that:

    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.

    A key aspect of this provision is the requirement for an immediate inventory and photography of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, along with representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These witnesses, often referred to as insulating witnesses, are meant to ensure transparency and prevent any potential for abuse or manipulation of evidence.

    In the Paran case, the prosecution’s evidence fell short of demonstrating full compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165. While SPO2 Briñas testified that an inventory was conducted at the police station in the presence of two barangay officials, the Court found this insufficient. The prosecution presented a Certification dated June 30, 2006, but this document only indicated the apprehension and seizure of marijuana, not a proper inventory conducted on the day of the arrest. Crucially, the Certification was only signed by the two barangay officials, lacking the signatures of representatives from the media or the DOJ.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of these insulating witnesses is not automatically fatal to the prosecution’s case. However, the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for their absence and demonstrate genuine efforts to secure their presence. As the Court stated, “While the absence of the insulating witnesses required by Section 21 of RA 91 65 does not itself render the confiscated items in admissible, a justifiable reason for the failure or a showing of a genuine and sufficient effort to secure them must be adduced.” The prosecution failed to offer any explanation for the absence of the media and DOJ representatives, nor did they present evidence of any attempts to secure their presence.

    Furthermore, the Court highlighted inconsistencies regarding the identity of the seized substance. The Request for Laboratory Examination described the item as “[a] small pi[e]ce of wrapped notebook pad containing suspected dried marijuana leaves[.] (buy bust),” while the Chemistry Report indicated that the examined specimen consisted of “marijuana fruiting tops.” This discrepancy raised doubts about whether the substance seized from Paran was the same substance tested in the laboratory, further undermining the prosecution’s case. As the Supreme Court held in Casona v. People:

    Inasmuch as the dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense charged, its identity and integrity must be shown by the State to have been preserved. On top of the elements for proving the offense of illegal possession, therefore, is that the substance possessed is the very substance presented in court. The State must establish this element with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required for ultimately handing down a criminal conviction.

    These lapses in procedure and inconsistencies in evidence led the Supreme Court to conclude that the prosecution had failed to prove Paran’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining a clear chain of custody to ensure the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused. Due to the prosecution’s failure to adequately show compliance with the rules, the appeal was granted, and Albert Paran was acquitted.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently complied with the chain of custody requirements outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 to prove the integrity and identity of the seized marijuana.
    What is the chain of custody rule? The chain of custody rule refers to the documented tracking of evidence from the time of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring its integrity and preventing tampering or substitution.
    Who are the required insulating witnesses under RA 9165? Under the old provision of RA 9165 (prior to amendment), the required insulating witnesses are the accused or their representative, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.
    What happens if the insulating witnesses are not present during the inventory? The absence of insulating witnesses does not automatically render the seized evidence inadmissible, but the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for their absence and demonstrate genuine efforts to secure their presence.
    What is the significance of the corpus delicti in drug cases? The corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, in drug cases is the dangerous drug itself, and its identity and integrity must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Why is it important to properly label and seal seized drugs? Proper labeling and sealing prevent tampering, alteration, or substitution of the drugs and ensure that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused.
    What was the discrepancy in the description of the seized substance in this case? The Request for Laboratory Examination described the substance as dried marijuana leaves, while the Chemistry Report identified it as marijuana fruiting tops, creating doubt about the identity of the corpus delicti.
    What was the ultimate outcome of the case? The Supreme Court acquitted Albert Paran due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the chain of custody rule and the discrepancies in the description of the seized substance, raising reasonable doubt about his guilt.

    This case underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases. Law enforcement officers must ensure that all steps in the chain of custody are meticulously followed to protect the rights of the accused and prevent wrongful convictions. The absence of required witnesses or inconsistencies in the handling of evidence can create reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal, as demonstrated in the case of Albert Paran.

    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 OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ALBERT PARAN Y GEMERGA, G.R. No. 220447, November 25, 2019

  • Safeguarding Rights: The Critical Role of Witness Presence in Drug Cases

    The Supreme Court has ruled that the failure of law enforcement to comply with the mandatory witness requirements during the seizure and inventory of illegal drugs compromises the integrity of the evidence and can lead to acquittal. This decision emphasizes strict adherence to procedural safeguards to protect individuals from potential abuses in drug-related arrests. It highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in law enforcement operations, ensuring that the rights of the accused are fully protected during drug-related arrests.

    When Evidence Falters: The Vital Witnesses Absent in a Drug Case

    In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Corazon and Jefferson Nazareno, the accused were convicted of selling illegal drugs. However, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, focusing on a critical procedural lapse by the arresting officers. The key issue was whether the buy-bust team complied with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This law outlines specific procedures for handling seized drugs, particularly the requirement for specific witnesses during the inventory and photography of the seized items.

    The law mandates that after seizing illegal drugs, law enforcement must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items immediately. This must be done in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected local official. These witnesses are crucial to ensure transparency and prevent the planting of evidence, safeguarding the rights of the accused. The absence of these witnesses can cast doubt on the integrity of the entire operation.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to Section 21 of RA 9165, highlighting the law’s specific requirements for handling drug-related evidence. The provision states:

    Section 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.

    The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 further elaborate on this requirement, emphasizing the need for these witnesses and the conditions under which non-compliance may be excused:

    Section 21. (a) The apprehending officer/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: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

    In this case, the buy-bust team failed to secure the presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ during the inventory and photography of the seized drugs. The Court noted that the prosecution did not acknowledge or offer any explanation for this absence. This failure to comply with the witness requirement was a critical factor in the Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused.

    The Court referenced People vs. Lim, stressing the importance of the presence of three insulating witnesses. When these witnesses are absent, the prosecution must explain why and demonstrate genuine efforts to secure their attendance. The absence of these witnesses at the time of arrest or drug seizure raises concerns about potential evidence planting. In the absence of any explanation, the saving clause under Section 21 (a) of RA 9165 does not apply.

    The prosecution’s reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions was insufficient to overcome the clear violation of procedural safeguards. The Court clarified that this presumption is disputable and cannot substitute for actual compliance with the law, particularly when preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases. The absence of the required witnesses, without a valid justification, cast significant doubt on the integrity of the evidence.

    The Supreme Court reiterated that the presence of insulating witnesses during the inventory is mandatory and serves a critical purpose. Their absence raises serious doubts about the integrity of the corpus delicti, which is the body of the crime. The corpus delicti is the actual substance of the crime. For drug cases, this refers to the illegal drug itself, and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    The Court acknowledged that while warrantless arrests can be valid under certain circumstances, such as during a buy-bust operation, strict adherence to procedural safeguards is still required. The failure to comply with these safeguards can undermine the entire case, leading to the acquittal of the accused. An arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require a warrant because it is considered a valid warrantless arrest.

    In this instance, while the arrest itself was deemed valid, the subsequent handling of the evidence did not meet the legal standards set forth in RA 9165. This deficiency was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision. The accused were initially found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the trial court. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the appellate court decision.

    Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and acquitted Corazon and Jefferson Nazareno. The Court also directed the immediate release of the accused from custody unless they were being held for any other lawful cause. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that law enforcement agencies comply with the prescribed procedures in drug cases. Cases like this show the importance of proper legal counsel.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the buy-bust team complied with Section 21 of RA 9165, requiring specific witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized drugs. The absence of these witnesses raised questions about the integrity of the evidence.
    What is the significance of the three-witness rule? The three-witness rule mandates that a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and an elected local official must be present during the inventory and photography of seized drugs. This ensures transparency and prevents evidence planting.
    What happens if the three-witness rule is not followed? If the three-witness rule is not followed, the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for the absence of the witnesses and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Failure to do so can lead to the inadmissibility of the evidence and acquittal of the accused.
    What is the corpus delicti in drug cases? The corpus delicti in drug cases refers to the body of the crime, specifically the illegal drug itself. The prosecution must establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court as evidence.
    Can the presumption of regularity replace compliance with RA 9165? No, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot substitute for actual compliance with the requirements of RA 9165. It is a disputable presumption that can be overturned by evidence to the contrary.
    What is a buy-bust operation? A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment where law enforcement agents pose as buyers to apprehend individuals engaged in illegal drug activities. While generally considered a valid method, it must be carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards.
    Why was the accused acquitted in this case? The accused were acquitted because the prosecution failed to comply with the witness requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 and did not provide a justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses. This failure cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence.
    What does this case tell us about drug-related arrests? This case underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related arrests. Law enforcement agencies must comply with the requirements of RA 9165 to ensure the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Corazon and Jefferson Nazareno highlights the critical role of procedural safeguards in drug cases. The mandatory presence of insulating witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized drugs is essential to ensuring transparency, preventing evidence planting, and protecting the rights of the accused. The failure to comply with these safeguards can have significant consequences, including the inadmissibility of evidence and the acquittal of the accused.

    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 OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CORAZON NAZARENO Y FERNANDEZ, G.R. No. 231875, July 29, 2019

  • Broken Chains: Acquittal Due to Flaws in Drug Evidence Handling

    In a stark reminder of the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court acquitted Babylyn Manansala y Cruz in a drug-related case due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the chain of custody rule outlined in Republic Act No. 9165. This decision underscores that even in cases involving dangerous drugs, the integrity of evidence and adherence to legal protocols are paramount, and failure to meet these standards can lead to an acquittal, regardless of the perceived guilt of the accused.

    When Missing Witnesses Undermine Drug Convictions

    This case revolves around the arrest and conviction of Babylyn Manansala for the illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “shabu.” The prosecution presented evidence from a buy-bust operation, claiming that Manansala sold a small amount of shabu to an undercover police officer. However, a critical element of the legal challenge centered on whether the police properly maintained the chain of custody of the seized drugs. This legal principle requires a clear, documented trail of evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring its integrity and preventing any tampering or substitution.

    The legal framework governing drug-related cases in the Philippines is primarily Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Section 21 of this Act details the procedures for handling seized drugs, emphasizing the importance of inventory and photography immediately after seizure. This process must occur in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official, all of whom are required to sign the inventory. The purpose of these requirements is to create a system of checks and balances, ensuring transparency and accountability in the handling of drug evidence.

    In this case, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165. Specifically, only a media representative was present during the inventory of the seized drugs, while representatives from the DOJ and an elected public official were absent. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this non-compliance, nor did they demonstrate that earnest efforts were made to secure the presence of these witnesses. The Court emphasized that the presence of these “insulating witnesses” is mandatory, serving a crucial purpose in safeguarding the integrity of the evidence. This mandate is designed to prevent potential abuse or manipulation of evidence by law enforcement officials.

    SECTION 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.

    The Court referenced its previous rulings in cases like *People v. Lim* (G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018), stressing that the prosecution must allege and prove the reasons for the absence of the three witnesses. Excuses such as the remoteness of the area, threats to safety, or involvement of officials in the crime must be substantiated. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the need for “earnest efforts” to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official. A mere statement of unavailability is insufficient; the prosecution must demonstrate genuine attempts to contact the required witnesses. The absence of these efforts raises serious doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

    The Supreme Court’s decision underscored that the buy-bust team had ample time to comply with the requirements of the law but failed to do so. Given that the team received the tip in the morning and conducted the operation in the evening, they had sufficient opportunity to secure the presence of the required witnesses. The court has consistently emphasized that the presence of insulating witnesses is mandatory, serving a crucial purpose by creating a check-and-balance system to safeguard the integrity of the corpus delicti. Without this safeguard, serious doubts are cast upon the evidence.

    The implications of this decision are significant for both law enforcement and individuals accused of drug-related offenses. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies of the importance of strict adherence to the procedural requirements outlined in RA 9165. Any deviation from these procedures, without justifiable reason and proper documentation, can jeopardize the prosecution’s case and lead to the acquittal of the accused. For individuals accused of drug offenses, this decision highlights the importance of understanding their rights and ensuring that law enforcement officials comply with all legal requirements. A failure to follow the correct procedures can be a valid ground for challenging the admissibility of evidence and potentially securing an acquittal. Moreover, it reinforces the principle that the presumption of innocence remains paramount and that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which includes establishing the integrity of the evidence.

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody of the seized drugs, particularly concerning the presence of required witnesses during the inventory and photography of the evidence.
    What is the chain of custody rule? The chain of custody rule refers to the documented and unbroken trail of evidence, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence, ensuring its integrity and admissibility in court.
    Who are the required “insulating witnesses” under RA 9165? The required insulating witnesses are a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.
    What happens if the insulating witnesses are not present? If the insulating witnesses are not present, the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for their absence and demonstrate that earnest efforts were made to secure their presence. Failure to do so can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence.
    What is the significance of the presence of insulating witnesses? The presence of insulating witnesses provides a check-and-balance system, ensuring transparency and preventing potential abuse or manipulation of evidence by law enforcement officials.
    What did the Supreme Court rule in this case? The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody rule, particularly the requirement for the presence of insulating witnesses, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
    Why was the accused acquitted? The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, specifically failing to justify the absence of required witnesses during the inventory process.
    What is the corpus delicti in drug cases? In drug cases, the *corpus delicti* refers to the actual dangerous drug itself, which must be proven to establish the crime.

    This case illustrates the vital importance of due process and adherence to legal procedures in drug-related cases. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a strong reminder that the integrity of evidence and the protection of individual rights must always be prioritized, even when dealing with serious offenses. The failure to comply with these safeguards can have significant consequences, including the acquittal of the accused.

    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 OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. BABYLYN MANANSALA Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 229509, July 03, 2019

  • Compromised Evidence: Safeguarding Rights in Drug Cases Through Strict Chain of Custody

    In drug-related cases, the integrity of evidence is paramount. The Supreme Court, in People v. Edwin Nieves, emphasized that failure to adhere strictly to the chain of custody rule, particularly the required presence of insulating witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs, can lead to acquittal. This ruling reinforces the importance of protecting individuals from potential abuses in anti-narcotics operations and ensures that the State meets its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The Missing Witnesses: Can a Buy-Bust Stand Without Proper Oversight?

    The case of Edwin Nieves began with a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers in Iba, Zambales. Nieves was accused of selling 0.029 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution presented testimonies from PO1 Rudico D. Angulo and PO2 Wilfredo F. Devera, who claimed to have conducted the buy-bust operation. They stated that PO1 Angulo acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased the illegal drugs from Nieves.

    However, Nieves contested these claims, asserting that he was mistakenly apprehended instead of his brother, Jun Jun Nieves. He also alleged that the police officers forced him to admit that he was his brother. His wife corroborated his account, stating that the police officers initially were looking for Jun Jun Nieves. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Nieves, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA gave more credence to the testimony of the police officers and stated the chain of custody of dangerous drugs was sufficiently proven to be unbroken. The RTC ruled that the prosecution proved that the chain of custody rule in drugs cases was followed by the police officers involved in this case. The RTC traced the chain of custody of the seized item from the place of apprehension to its transmission to court.

    The Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower courts’ decisions, focusing primarily on the lapses in the chain of custody. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the prosecution must prove the corpus delicti, which is the body of the crime. In other words, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law. Compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such operation. Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.

    Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs to maintain their integrity as evidence. This section requires the inventory and photographing of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation. The same inventory must be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. According to the Court, this must be so because with “the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great.”

    In this case, the Supreme Court noted that the buy-bust operation was conducted without the presence of any of the three insulating witnesses. PO1 Angulo and PO2 Devera claimed they were only accompanied by other police officers. This was further substantiated by PO2 Devera’s testimony in court. The inventory was subsequently conducted at the police station without any explanation as to why it was impracticable to do the same at the place of apprehension. More importantly, only two of the three required witnesses – the DOJ representative and the elective official – were present in the conduct of the inventory.

    The Court also addressed the issue of the missing media representative. PO1 Angulo initially claimed that a media representative was present but he was unable to recall their name. PO2 Devera later testified that there was no media representative, citing a “written manifesto” from media practitioners requesting exclusion from anti-drug operations. The Supreme Court dismissed this “written manifesto” as insufficient justification for deviating from the prescribed procedure. The Court stated that the requirements of the law cannot be set aside by the simple expedient of a “written manifesto”. The Court emphasized that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose.

    The Supreme Court quoted People v. Tomawis, elucidating on the purpose of the law in mandating the presence of the required witnesses as follows:

    The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against! the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, “planting” or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.

    The prosecution has the burden of proving their compliance with Section 21, RA 9165, and providing a sufficient explanation in case of non-compliance. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the absence of the required witnesses during the buy-bust operation and inventory. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were thus compromised. Furthermore, the inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimonies cast reasonable doubt on Nieves’ guilt. Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted Nieves, citing reasonable doubt due to the compromised chain of custody and inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimonies. The Court also directed the National Police Commission to conduct an investigation on the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation.

    This case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of adhering to the procedures outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165. Law enforcement officers must ensure the presence of the required witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs to maintain the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused. Furthermore, prosecutors must diligently discharge their onus to prove compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, and its IRR, which is fundamental in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. The procedure outlined in Section 21 is straightforward and easy to comply with. In the presentation of evidence to prove compliance therewith, the prosecutors are enjoined to recognize any deviation from the prescribed procedure and provide the explanation therefor as dictated by available evidence.

    This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the rights of individuals facing drug charges and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable and untainted evidence. It reiterates that while the pursuit of justice is essential, it must never come at the expense of due process and fundamental rights.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the chain of custody of the seized drugs, particularly regarding the presence of required witnesses during the seizure and inventory.
    Who are the required witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs? The required witnesses are the accused or their representative, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.
    What happens if the required witnesses are not present during the seizure and inventory? The absence of the required witnesses can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused, unless the prosecution can provide justifiable reasons for the non-compliance.
    What is the significance of the chain of custody in drug cases? The chain of custody ensures that the drug presented in court is the same drug seized from the accused, preventing tampering, substitution, or planting of evidence.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court acquitted Edwin Nieves due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, particularly the absence of required witnesses during the seizure and inventory.
    Can a “written manifesto” from media practitioners excuse the absence of a media representative? No, the Supreme Court held that a “written manifesto” does not justify the police officers’ deviation from the prescribed procedure of having a media representative present.
    What is the prosecution’s responsibility in establishing compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165? The prosecution has the burden of proving their compliance with Section 21, RA 9165, and providing a sufficient explanation in case of non-compliance.
    What action did the Supreme Court order regarding the police officers involved? The Supreme Court directed the National Police Commission to conduct an investigation on the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation.

    This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect individual rights and ensure fair trials. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement officers and prosecutors to diligently comply with the requirements of RA 9165 to maintain the integrity of evidence and uphold the principles of justice.

    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 OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDWIN NIEVES Y ACUAVERA A.K.A. “ADING”, G.R. No. 239787, June 19, 2019

  • Safeguarding Rights: Imperfect Chain of Custody Leads to Acquittal in Drug Cases

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Jocelyn Maneclang of drug-related charges due to a failure in establishing an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. This decision underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, particularly Section 21, which governs the handling of confiscated drugs. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s failure to properly document and preserve the integrity of the evidence compromised the case, leading to the accused’s acquittal. This ruling serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements that law enforcement must meet in drug cases to ensure justice and protect individual rights.

    From Buy-Bust to Botched Evidence: Can an Arrest Stand Without Chain of Custody?

    The case began with a buy-bust operation conducted by the Manila Police District (MPD) in Sampaloc, Manila, targeting a certain “Muslim” allegedly involved in illegal drug activities. After receiving information from a confidential informant, PO2 Mario Anthony Aresta, acting as the poseur-buyer, engaged with Jocelyn Maneclang, who offered to sell shabu when “Muslim” was not around. Subsequently, Maneclang was arrested, and several sachets of suspected shabu were seized from her possession. She was charged with violations of Sections 5 (illegal sale) and 11 (illegal possession) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. However, the subsequent handling of the seized evidence became the focal point of the legal challenge. During the arrest the buy bust team did not follow Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Maneclang guilty beyond reasonable doubt, giving weight to the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers’ duties. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, emphasizing the validity of the warrantless arrest and the subsequent search and seizure. Maneclang appealed, arguing that her arrest was illegal, and the integrity of the seized items was not preserved due to a broken chain of custody. The Supreme Court, in a reversal, focused on the procedural lapses in handling the evidence, ultimately acquitting Maneclang. Despite affirming the validity of the warrantless arrest, the Supreme Court found the prosecution’s case lacking due to critical breaches in the chain of custody.

    The Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of Maneclang’s warrantless arrest. Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for arrests without a warrant under specific circumstances, including when a person is caught in the act of committing an offense. In this case, PO2 Aresta witnessed Maneclang selling illegal drugs, justifying the warrantless arrest. The Court highlighted that the two key elements for a valid warrantless arrest under this rule were present: an overt act indicating the commission of a crime and the act being done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Therefore, the arrest was deemed lawful. Even if the accused was not the target of the buy-bust operation, the arrest is valid as long as the accused performs some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

    Despite the legality of the arrest, the Supreme Court underscored the critical importance of establishing an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The chain of custody rule, as outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165, requires strict adherence to procedures in handling seized drugs to maintain their evidentiary value. The law mandates that the apprehending team, after seizure, must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused or their representative, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official, all of whom must sign the inventory.

    In Maneclang’s case, critical procedural lapses occurred. While the sachets were marked at the place of arrest, the required inventory was not conducted there due to a commotion. The inventory was later performed at the police station, but without the presence of the mandatory insulating witnesses which included elected public officials and representatives from the DOJ and the media. The police officers claimed that no insulating witnesses were present during the turnover. PO2 Aresta testified that a Kagawad (Barangay official) arrived but questioned the operation and did not witness the preparation of the inventory. The absence of these witnesses and their signatures on the inventory receipt raised serious concerns about the integrity of the seized items.

    The Supreme Court referenced People v. Lim, highlighting that the failure to secure the presence of these witnesses undermines the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The Court emphasized that honest-to-goodness efforts must be made to comply with the witness requirement, and mere statements of unavailability are insufficient. The prosecution failed to provide specific evidence of genuine attempts to secure the attendance of these witnesses, further weakening their case. The insulating witnesses are very important in deterring the common practice of planting evidence.

    Furthermore, the chain of custody suffered a crucial break after the drugs were delivered to the MPD Crime Laboratory Service. While the Request for Laboratory Examination indicated that PCI Calabocal, the forensic chemist, received the drugs, he did not sign the receipt. Moreover, PCI Calabocal was not presented as a witness, and the stipulation regarding his testimony only covered the examination results, not the source of the substance. This absence of a clear link between PO2 Aresta and PCI Calabocal created an unbridgeable gap in the chain of custody. The four links that must be established in the chain of custody include: 1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug confiscated from the accused by the apprehending officer; 2) the turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; 3) the turnover by the investigating officer of said item to the forensic chemist for examination; and, 4) the turnover and submission thereof from [the] forensic chemist to the court.

    The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crimes and establish an unbroken chain of custody. Due to the breaches of procedure committed by the apprehending officers, the Court found that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crimes and to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty accorded to the apprehending officers cannot, therefore, arise. As a result, Jocelyn Maneclang was acquitted, reinforcing the necessity of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165, to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.
    Why was the accused acquitted? The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically the lack of insulating witnesses during the inventory and a break in the chain of custody between the arresting officer and the forensic chemist.
    What are insulating witnesses? Insulating witnesses, as required by RA 9165, are representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official, who must be present during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs to ensure transparency and prevent planting of evidence.
    What is the chain of custody? The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers and handling of evidence, from seizure to presentation in court, ensuring that the integrity and identity of the evidence are preserved. Each person who handled the evidence must be accounted for.
    What constitutes a valid warrantless arrest in this case? A valid warrantless arrest occurred because the accused was caught in the act of selling illegal drugs to the poseur-buyer, satisfying the requirements of an in flagrante delicto arrest under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
    Why is the presence of insulating witnesses important? The presence of insulating witnesses is crucial to deter the practice of planting evidence and to ensure transparency and accountability in the handling of seized drugs, safeguarding the rights of the accused.
    What did the Supreme Court emphasize about compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165? The Supreme Court emphasized that strict adherence to the mandatory requirements of Section 21 may be excused as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items were properly preserved.
    What was the unbridged gap in the link of the chain of custody? The unbridged gap was that the forensic chemist was not presented as a witness, and the stipulation regarding his testimony only covered the examination results, not on the source of the substance, there was no stipulation that he indeed received the seized drugs from PO2 Aresta.

    This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that law enforcement adheres to procedural safeguards in drug cases. The stringent requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 are not mere formalities but essential measures to prevent abuse and maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to prioritize proper evidence handling and documentation to secure convictions that withstand legal scrutiny.

    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 OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOCELYN MANECLANG Y ABDON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 230337, June 17, 2019