Module 5

Drug prevention programs and Law Enforcement Efforts

A. National Campaign Strategies

B. What is the PDEA?

PDEA means Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
It is the implementing arm of the DDB and responsible for the efficient and effective law
enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drugs and/ or precursors and
essential chemicals.
Head: Director General- appointed by the President
Assisted By 2 Deputies Director General ( one for Admin, another for Opns) -appointed
by the President(sec. 82, Art IX)
PDEA Operating Units
It absorbed the National Drug Law Enforcement & Prevention Coordinating Center
( NDLE-PCC) (created under E.0.8 NARCOM of the PNP Narcotics Division of the NBI,
and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit (sec. 86, Art IX)

C. Powers and Functions of the PDEA? (Sec. 84, Art IX)

1. Cause the effective and efficient implementation of the national drug control strategy.
2. Enforcement of the provisions of Art II of this Act,
3. Undertake investigation, make arrest and apprehension of violators and seizure and
confiscation of dangerous drugs.
4. Establish forensic laboratories,
5. Filing of appropriate drug cases,
6. Conduct eradication programs,
7. Maintain a national drug intelligence system
8. Close coordination with local and international drug agencies.
D.Anti-Drug Drives and Operational Concepts
The following are samples of Operational Plans (OPLANS) against the drug
problem:
1. Oplan Thunderbolt I – operational to create an impact to the underworld
2. Oplan Thunderbolt II – operations used to neutralize suspected illegal drug
laboraties
3. Oplan Thunderbolt III – operations for neutralization of big time drug pushers
drug dealers and drug lords
4. Oplan Iceberg – special operations team in selected drug prone areas in order to
get rid of illegal drug activities in the area
5. Oplan Hunter – operations against suspected military and police personnel who
are engaged in illegal drug activities
6. Oplan Mercurion – operations against drug stores, which are violating existing
regulations on the scale regulated drugs in coordination with the DDB,DOH and
BFAD
7. Oplan Tornado – operations drug notorious and high profile places
8. Oplan Greengold – nationwide MJ eradication operation in coordination with the
local governments and NGOs
9. Oplan Sagip-Yagit – a civic program initiated by NGOs and local government
offices to help eradicate drug syndicates involving street children as drug conduit.
10. Oplan Banat – an operational plan against drug abuse focused in the barangay
level in cooperation with barangay officials.
11. Oplan Athena – operation conducted to neutralize the 14k, the bamboo gang
and other local organized crimes group involved in illegal drug trafficking.
 12. Oplan Cyclops – operations against Chinese triad members involved in the
illegal drug operations particularly methamphetamine hydrochloride.

E. General Rules on Narcotic Operation

General Rules and Procedures:
1. Only specially trained and completed drug enforcement
personnel shall conduct drug enforcement and prevention
operations
2. All drug enforcement and prevention operations shall be
covered by a Pre-operation report.

3. All steps taken before, during and after the conduct of the
operation must be documented and properly authenticated.
4. Operating units shall promptly submit written a report
after the operation.
5. No apprehender or seized item shall be released without
authorization from the duly designated authority.
6. All pieces of evidence confiscated will be deposited with
proper Evidence Custodian for safekeeping and proper handling.
7. Each participating element must be given clear and do-able
task.

Coverage of the Rules

The rules governing narcotics operations cover the following
anti-narcotics operations.

a. Buy-bust operations

b. Search with warrant

c. MJ eradication

d. Mobile Check point Operations

e. Airport/Seaport Interdiction
f. Controlled delivery

g. Undercover operations

h. Narcotics Investigation

Stages of Operations
Phase I - Initial stage
. Planning and preparations which include surveillance,
casing, reconnaissance and other preliminary activities.
. Conduct the operation
Phase II - Action and post action stage
 Tactical Interrogations(follow-up operation)
 Post operation
 Custodial Investigation
 Prosecution
 Trial
 Resolution

Buy-Bust Operations
Concept: It is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers
as an effective way of apprehending criminal in the act of
commission of the offense. Entrapment has received judicial
sanction as long as it is carried with due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards.
 Planning and Preparation: the operation must be preceded by an
intensive surveillance, casing or other intelligence
operations and gathering, evaluation and timely dissemination.
Intelligence must be evidence-based and shall be supported by
documents such as summaries of info, maps, sketches,
affidavits and sworn statements.
Search for Drug Evidence with Warrant
Concept: A search warrant is an 'order in writing issued in
the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge
and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for
personal property describe therein and bring it before the
court. (Sec. 1, Rule 126, Revised Rules of court.
Planning and Preparation: Prior to the procurement of search
warrant, intensive intelligence data gathering must be
undertaken, evidence-based and supported by credible
documents; Conduct of surveillance, casing, and other
intelligence operations; identification, movement, activities
and locations of suspects should be established; Search
warrant shall be applied with competent court; conduct of
operation; Submission of reports.
Marijuana Eradication
Concept: Marijuana eradication involves the location and
destruction of marijuana plantations, including the
identification, arrest and prosecution of the planter, owner or
cultivator, and the cheating of the land where the plantation is
located.
Planning and Preparation: the planning and operations shall be
preceded by intelligence gathering to verify the existence of
marijuana plantation and the existence to be supported by
documentary evidence such as summary of information, maps,
sketches, photographs and others. A pre-operation order and after
casing report must be appropriately documented - the intelligence
gathering.

Conduct of Operation: Briefing, rehearsals and proper

formation; Exact location of the plantation must be
established; Identify owner of the Land or the cultivators;
Coordination with the other operating units in the area;
Barangay SOPs under rules of operations.
Mobile checkpoint Operations
Concept: No other forms of checkpoints other than mobile
checkpoints are authorized for drug enforcement and prevention
operations. They shall be established only in conjunction with
on-going operations/situation or when there is a need to
arrest a criminal.
Planning and Operations: Intensive intelligence gathering
supported by credible documents, with proper pre-operations
orders and after surveillance or after casing report.
Conduct of Operations: It shall be in consonance with the
existing SOPS on checkpoint operation.
Airport and Seaport Interdiction
Concept: airport and seaport interdiction involves the conduct
of surveillance, interception and interdiction of persons and
evidence during travel by air or sea vessels.
Planning and Operation: intensive intelligence gathering
supported by credible documents, with proper pre-operations
orders and after surveillance or after casing reports.
Conduct of Operations: Coordination with airport and seaport
authorities shall be made. Operations shall be in consonance
with the existing SOPs on airport and seaport
check/operations.
Controlled Delivery
 Concept: This is the technique of allowing elicit consignment
of narcotics drugs, suspect consignment or psychotropic
substances or substances substituted for them to pass out of,
through or into the territory of one or more countries, with
the knowledge and under the supervision of their competent
authorities with a view of identifying persons involved in the
commission of drug related offenses.

Planning and Operation: Intensive intelligence gathering and

evaluation to determine the applicability of controlled
delivery operations. It must be supported by credible
documents, with proper pre-operation orders and after
surveillance or after casing reports. A committee or board
shall be constituted to study the project proposal for the
suitable employment of controlled delivery operation.
Conduct of Operations: Proper formation for accounting of
personnel, coordination with airport, seaport and other
traveling agency authorities, and operations shall be in
consonant with the existing SOPS on controlled delivery
operations.
Undercover Operations
Concept: Undercover operation is investigative technique in
which the personnel involve assumes different identities in
order to obtain necessary information. This technique may also
be considered as a method of surveillance.
Planning and Operation: Proper operations shall be reported to
only under circumstance where evidence can be hardly obtained
in an open investigation or when an open investigation is
unsuccessful.
Conduct of Operations: Proper briefing and rehearsal,
identification of effective cover and undercover, buy-bust or
search with warrant operations, and operations shall be in
consonance with the existing SOPS on undercover operations.

Module 6
Law Enforcement Operative’ Knowledge

Planting of Evidence- the crime of putting something stolen or illegal on someone or

hiding it in their possessions without their knowledge so that they appear to be guilty
when it is found.
 According to Republic Act no. 9516 (an act further amending the provisions of
presidential decree no. 1866, as amended, entitled codifying the laws on
illegal/unlawful possession, manufacture, dealing in, acquisition or disposition of
firearms, ammunition or explosives or instruments used in the manufacture of
firearms, ammunition or explosives, and imposing stiffer penalties for certain
violations thereof, and for other relevant purposes):
"SEC 4-A. Criminal Liability for Planting of Evidence. - Any person who is found
guilty of 'planting' any explosive or incendiary device or any part, ingredient,
machinery, tool or instrument of any explosive or incendiary device, whether
chemical, mechanical, electronic, electrical or otherwise, shall suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua."

"Planting of evidence shall mean the willful act by any person of maliciously and
surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or attaching, directly or indirectly, through any
overt or covert act, whatever quantity of any explosive or incendiary device or any part,
ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument of any explosive or incendiary device, whether
chemical, mechanical, electronic, electrical or otherwise in the person, house, effects or
in the immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating
incriminating or imputing the commission of any violation of this Decree."
Planting of Evidence. – The willful act by any person of maliciously and surreptitiously
inserting, placing, adding or attaching directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert
act, whatever quantity of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical in the person, house, effects or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent
individual for the purpose of implicating, incriminating or imputing the commission of any
violation of this Act.

Weight of planted evidence

Planted evidence is not admissible and has no evidentiary value whatsoever.
Accordingly, all evidence that were acquired as a result of the planted evidence is
inadmissible being a fruit of the poisonous tree.
Under RA 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
 Sec 29. Criminal Liability for Planting of Evidence. Any person who is found guilty of
"planting" any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical,
regardless of quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of DEATH . The willful act
by any person of maliciously and surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or
attaching directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert act, whatever quantity of
any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical in the
person, house, effects or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for the
purpose of implicating, incriminating or imputing the commission of any violation of
this Act.
b. Unlawful Arrest

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court charged and convicted petitioners with the crime of
unlawful arrest penalized under Article 269 of the Revised Penal Code, which states:

ARTICLE 269. Unlawful Arrest. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, in any case other than
those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground therefor, shall arrest or detain
another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.55

The crime of unlawful arrest punishes an offender's act of arresting or detaining another
to deliver him or her to the proper authorities, when the arrest or detention is not
authorized, or that there is no reasonable ground to arrest or detain the other.

UNLAWFUL ARREST
I. Concept: It is the crime committed by any person, whether a private person or public
officer, who arrests or detains a person without reasonable ground, therefore, for the
purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.
A. The public officer is one who has no power to arrest or order the detention of
another, else it is arbitrary detention.
B. The situation is that the arrest is not a valid warrantless arrest but the victim is
brought before the police or prosecutor’s office or court, for the purpose of filing charges
against the victim.
C. If the purpose is otherwise, the crime may be detention or coercion or abduction.
D. The term is not “Illegal Arrest”.
E. This may be complexed with Incriminatory Machination. E.g. A person placed a knife
in the bag of another and then arrests him and brings him to the police station.

Arbitrary Detention -

Q: What are the elements of the crime of arbitrary

detention?
A:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
2. He detains a person
3. Detention is without legal grounds.
Q: When is a person considered in detention?
A: A person is detained when he is placed in
confinement or there is restraint on his person.
Q: Can there be arbitrary detention even if the
victims were not kept in an enclosure?
A: Yes. The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping
and illegal detention is that the curtailment of the
victim’s liberty need not involve any physical
restraint upon the victim’s person. If the acts and
actuations of the accused can produce such fear in
the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the
latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to
limit his own actions and movements in accordance
with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is,
for all intent and purposes, detained against his
will. (Benito Astorga v. People, G.R. No. 154130,
Oct. 1, 2003)
Q: When is detention said to be without legalgrounds?
A: The detention of a person is without legal
ground:
1. When he has not committed any crime or,at least, there is no reasonable ground for
suspicion that he has committed a crime.
XPN: A valid warrantless arrest (Sec.5,Rule 113, Revised Rules of Court).
2. When he is not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring
compulsory confinement in a hospital.
Q: Is it necessary that the public officer be a police
officer for him to be held liable for arbitrary detention?
A: No. It is important, however, that the public officer must be vested with the authority
to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime such as policemen and
other agents of law, judges or mayors.
Note: In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer whose functions have
something to do with the protection of life and/or property and maintenance of peace
and order. Thus, if the one, who arrests another without legal ground, is without
authority to do so, like a clerk in the Office of the Central Bank Governor, arbitrary
detention is not the proper charge but illegal detention.
Q: Can a barangay chairman be guilty of this crime?
A: Yes. He has authority, in order to maintain peace and order, to cause the arrest and
detention of a person. (Boado, 2008)
Q: Can private individuals be held liable for arbitrary detention?
A: Yes, if they conspired with such public officers.
Q: What are the legal grounds for the detention of
persons without which a public officer may be
held liable?
A:
GR:
1. Commission of a crime
2. Violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a
hospital
3. When the person to be arrested is an escaping prisoner
XPN: When the peace officers acted in good faith even if the 3 grounds mentioned
above are not obtaining, there is no arbitrary detention.

Illegal Search and Seizure -

A search and seizure is unreasonable if it is made without a warrant, or the
warrant was invalidly issued. > In all instances, what constitutes reasonable or
unreasonable search or seizure is a purely judicial question determinable from a
consideration of the attendant circumstances.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Section 9. Time of making search. – The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time,
unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched,
in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night.

In People v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained that a search warrant, as an exception, may be
18

enforced at any reasonable hour of the day or night, to wit:

The general rule is that search warrants must be served during the daytime. However, the rule
allows an exception, namely, a search at any reasonable hour of the day or night, when the
application asserts that the property is on the person or place ordered to be searched. In the
instant case, the judge issuing the warrant relied on the positive assertion of the applicant and his
witnesses that the firearms and ammunition were kept at private respondent's residence. Evidently,
the court issuing the warrant was satisfied that the affidavits of the applicants clearly satisfied the
requirements of Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. The rule on issuance of a search warrant
allows for the exercise of judicial discretion in fixing the time within which the warrant may be served,
subject to the statutory requirement fixing the maximum time for the execution of a warrant. We have
examined the application for search warrant, and the deposition of the witnesses supporting said
application, and find that both satisfactorily comply with the requirements of Section 8, Rule 126. The
inescapable conclusion is that the judge who issued the questioned warrant did not abuse his
discretion in allowing a search "at any reasonable hour of the day or night." Absent such abuse of
discretion, a search conducted at night where so allowed, is not improper. (emphasis supplied;
19

citations omitted).

In this case, the search warrant stated that the search shall be made at "ANY TIME OF THE DAY
OR NIGHT." Notably, the RTC Cebu City issued the search warrant based on the deposition of PO3
20

Arturo C. Enriquez and PO3 Jesus Manulat, which stated that they allegedly bought shabu from
21

petitioner at about 9:00 in the evening. Thus, the RTC Cebu City had basis to state that the search
warrant may also be implemented at dawn or early morning.

Further, petitioner failed to prove that the entry of police officers in his house was unreasonable.
Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states:

Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. – The Officer, if refused admittance to
the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any
outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the
warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.

As testified by SPO2 Matillano, when they went to the house of petitioner, they knocked on the door
and called out petitioner's name but nobody answered. Thus, they bumped the door open on the
22

ground floor to be able to enter petitioner's house. However, the second floor, where petitioner and
his children were staying, also had a locked door. At that moment, they tried to convince petitioner to
open the door, to which he obliged. Verily, the police officers followed Sec. 7, Rule 126 when they
forcibly opened the door of the first floor because they were refused admittance despite giving notice
to petitioner.

Chain of Custody Rule

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 applies whether the drugs were seized either in a buy-bust operation or
pursuant to a search warrant. Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of the
seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the
seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. To ensure the establishment of
23

the chain of custody, Sec. 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 specifies that:

(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.

Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation, to
immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the same in the presence of (1) the
accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media and (3) the DOJ; and (4) any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

A plain reading of the law shows that it applies as long as there has been a seizure and confiscation
of drugs. There is nothing in the statutory provision which states that it is only applicable when there
is a warrantless seizure in a buy-bust operation. Thus, it should be applied in every situation when
an apprehending team seizes and confiscates drugs from an accused, whether through a buy-bust
operation or through a search warrant.
A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or
ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. There is only room for application. As
the statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied
without attempted interpretation. This is what is known as the plain-meaning rule or verba legis. It is
expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or "speech is the index of intention." Furthermore, there
is the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or "from the words of a statute there should be no
departure."24

Based on verba legis, Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, operates as long as there is seizure
and confiscation of drugs. It does not distinguish between warrantless seizure of the drugs in a buy-
bust operation and in the implementation of a search warrant. Accordingly, in every situation where
there is a seizure and confiscation of drugs, the presence of the accused, or his/her representative
or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official, is required
during the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drugs, because they shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

The Court is aware that Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides
that only two (2) witnesses are required to be present during the implementation of a search warrant:

Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two witnesses. – No search
of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant
thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age
and discretion residing in the same locality.

Nevertheless, Sec. 8 of Rule 126 is a general provision with respect to the implementation of search
warrants in all kinds of cases, such as for illegal firearms, infringing goods, or incriminating
documents. On the other hand, Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and as implemented by its
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), is a special provision that applies specifically to the
seizure and confiscation of dangerous drugs. In case of conflict between a general law and a special
1a₩phi1

law, the latter must prevail regardless of the dates of their enactment. Thus, it has been held that —
[t]he fact that one law is special and the other general creates a presumption that the special act is
to be considered as remaining an exception of the general act, one as a general law of the land and
the other as the law of the particular case.25

Further, Sec. 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is not even a substantive law;
rather, it is a mere remedial provision. In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme
Court, for the practice and procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any
substantive right, the test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process
for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and
redress for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural.
If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but
if it operates as a means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with
procedure. 26

Here, Congress enacted Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to ensure the identity and integrity of the seized
drugs and to prevent tampering thereof. As stated in People v. Acub, in all prosecutions for
27

violations of R.A. No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Its existence is essential
to a judgment of conviction. Hence, the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly established.
Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition and nature, they
must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to
alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized
from the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as
evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts
involving the identity of seized drugs are removed. 28

Verily, in the special cases of seizure of drugs, the statutory provision of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165
should apply and must take precedence in contrast to the general remedial provision of Sec. 8, Rule
126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

On the other hand, Sec. 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 supplements Sec. 21(1) of the said
law, viz.:

(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 noncompliance 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.

From the foregoing, the only recognizable difference between seizure and confiscation of drugs
pursuant to a search warrant and a buybust operation is the venue of the physical inventory and
taking of photographs of the said drugs. In People v. Lazaro, the Court explained that the venue of
29

physical inventory is not limited to the place of apprehension. The venues of the physical inventory
and photography of the seized items differ and depend on whether the seizure was made by virtue
of a search warrant or through a warrantless seizure such as a buy-bust operation.

When the drugs are seized pursuant to a search warrant, then the physical inventory and taking of
photographs shall be conducted at the place where the said search warrant was served. In contrast,
when the drugs are seized pursuant to a buy-bust operation or a warrantless seizure, then these can
be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team. Other
than that, there is no other difference between seizure and confiscation of drugs with a search
warrant and without it (such as a buy-bust operation). Consistent with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, its
IRR does not suspend the application of the chain of custody rule simply because the drugs were
seized pursuant to a search warrant. Thus, the witnesses under the law are required to be present.
Again, the only difference is with respect to the venue of the inventory and taking of photographs.

Notably, Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was recently amended by R.A. No. 10640, which became
effective on July 15, 2014. In the amendment, the apprehending team is now required to conduct a
physical inventory of the seized items and to photograph the same (1) in the presence of the
accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official and (3) a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof. In this case, as the alleged crime was committed on June 19, 2003, the
30

provisions of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, prior to its amendment, and its IRR shall apply.

Further, Sec. 21 and its IRR provide for a saving clause in case of noncompliance with the chain of
custody rule. This saving clause applies only (1) where the prosecution recognized the procedural
lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds, and (2) when the prosecution
established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. The
prosecution, thus, loses the benefit of invoking the presumption of regularity and bears the burden of
proving – with moral certainty – that the illegal drug presented in court is the same drug that was
confiscated from the accused during his arrest. Again, this saving clause does not distinguish
31

between cases with a search warrant and a buy-bust operation. Whether drugs were seized in a
buy-bust operation or in the implementation of the search warrant, the prosecution can invoke the
saving clause provided that there is justifiable reason for noncompliance with the procedural lapses
and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are established.

Jurisprudence has consistently

applied Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165
in the implementation of a search
warrant

A review of the jurisprudence shows that even when the drugs are seized and confiscated pursuant
to a search wanant, the Court still applies Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to determine whether the corpus
delicti was properly established.

In People v. Gayoso, the police officers therein secured a search warrant to search the house of the
32

accused. Upon implementing the search warrant, they saw a tin foil containing several sachets of
suspected shabu. However, the apprehending team never conducted a physical inventory of the
seized items at the place where the warrant was served in the presence of a representative of the
DOJ, nor did it photograph the same in the presence of accused after their initial custody and control
of the said drug, and after immediately seizing and confiscating the same, violating Sec. 21 of R.A.
No. 9165. The saving clause under the IRR was not applied because the prosecution did not offer
any explanation for noncompliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were
not preserved. Thus, the accused therein was acquitted. Verily, even if the drugs are seized
pursuant to a search warrant, the Court dutifully applies Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to determine
compliance with the chain of custody rule.

In Cunanan v. People, a search warrant was secured by the police operatives in searching the
33

bedroom and vehicle of the accused therein. They found several sachets of suspected shabu.
However, the apprehending team did not comply with the provisions of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165
because there was no representative of the DOJ present during the physical inventory and taking of
photographs of the seized items. Further, there were several unexplained discrepancies in the
marking and the numbering of the confiscated items, which resulted in failure to comply with the
 chain of custody rule. As a result, the Court acquitted the accused. Again, Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165
was observed in the confiscation of the seized drugs in the implementation of the search warrant.

Similarly, in Dizon v. People, the Court acquitted the accused therein of the drug charges because
34

of the police operatives' failure to comply with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 in the implementation of a
search warrant. In said case, the police officers implemented a warrant in the house of the accused.
Several sachets of suspected shabu were confiscated but the inventory and taking of photographs
were only conducted in the presence of the accused and two (2) barangay kagawads. The Court
ruled that there was noncompliance with Sec. 21 because there were no media and DOJ
representatives present during the inventory. Likewise, the saving clause did not apply because they
failed to provide justifiable reason for their failure to secure the attendance of these witnesses. The
Court underscored that lapses in the procedure under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, when left
unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have been
compromised.

On the other hand, in Derilo v. People, a search warrant was also implemented in the residence of
35

the accused therein. However, the police operatives failed to follow the chain of custody rule under
Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. They failed to immediately and consistently mark the seized items and
there was doubt as to who actually handled the said drugs when these were confiscated. Due to the
noncompliance with the chain of custody rule under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the accused was
acquitted.

In the same manner, in People v. Dumaplin, the police officers secured a search warrant against
36

the accused therein. They first conducted a buy-bust operation and then implemented the search
warrant in the accused's residence. The Court ruled that the police officers utterly failed to comply
with the chain of custody rule under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. It was underscored that the
prosecution failed to explain how the purported seized drugs were transferred from one person to
another until these were presented in court. The handling of the seized drugs was also unexplained.
For failure to comply with Sec. 21, the accused was acquitted.

Verily, jurisprudence has consistently held that in the seizure and confiscation of seized drugs in the
implementation of a search warrant, the Court religiously applies Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as
amended, including the mandatory presence of the required witnesses during the physical inventory
and taking of photographs of the seized drugs, and the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary
value of the same in applying the saving clause under the IRR. Notably, these cases never stated
that Sec. 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure on the implementation of search
warrants prevails over Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. As a result, Sec. 21 must always be complied with
regardless of whether the seizure and confiscation of the seized drugs are a result of a buy-bust
operation or during the implementation of a search warrant.

Unreasonable SEARCH AND SEIZURE

A person apprehended due to possession or use of illegal drugs under the

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Law can raise the defense that he was subjected to
unreasonable search by a law enforcement officer. Persons have an inviolable
constitutional right under Section 2 of the Bill of Rights to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature. In short, even if the person is actually in possession of illegal drugs, the said
confiscated items can still be held inadmissible in court.

The general rule is that a search warrant is required for a police officer to compel a person to
allow entry in his house for the purpose of confirming the existence of illegal drugs and
confiscating the same. There are several exceptions to this general rule.

One of these exceptions is warrantless search as an incident to an arrest. A person lawfully

arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used
or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. Other
exceptions include (a) search of evidence in “plain view”; (b) search of a moving vehicle; (c)
consented warrantless search; (d) customs search; (e) stop and frisk; and (f) exigent and
emergency circumstances.

The absence of a search warrant, when the case does not fall in any of these exceptions, is
fatal to the case of the prosecution. In People v. Collado (G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013),
the apprehending officers entered the house of the accused, where they found open plastic
sachets (containing shabu residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and pieces of used
aluminum foil.
Despite this very obvious discovery of the commission of a crime (i.e. possession of illegal
drugs and paraphernalia), the Supreme Court still acquitted the accused on the ground of
lack of a search warrant. “The arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the time
of the arrest, accused had just committed, were committing, or were about to commit a
crime, as they had no probable cause to enter the house of accused Rafael Gonzales in
order to arrest them.”

A person arrested for possession of illegal drugs has the right to object to the introduction of
evidence obtained from a warrantless search. The prosecution then has the burden to prove
that the warrantless search falls under an exception to the general rule that a warrant is
required for the search.

Module 7

Law Enforcement operations Procedures