Many drug cases ‘misinterpreted’

CEBU, Philippines - Apart from refusal of barangay officials to serve as witnesses in the inventory of seized illegal drugs after an operation, misinterpretation of the law has also contributed to the high dismissal rate of drug cases, a former Dangerous Drugs Board undersecretary has alleged.

Lawyer Clarence Paul Oaminal said the law provides that the apprehending team, which has initial custody and control of the seized drugs, shall conduct physical inventory and photograph of the said dangerous drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation.

 Section 21 of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) sets that this should be done “in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”

Oaminal said physical inventory and photography is required regardless of the means of seizure, whether warrantless, which is commonly done through buy-bust operations and checkpoint, or raids made by virtue of search warrants.

He said the conduct of physical inventory and photography only differs in the venue. This means that if seizure of dangerous drugs is aided with a search warrant, the physical inventory and photography “must be conducted in the place where the search warrant was served.”

On the other hand, if the seizure is warrantless, the inventory is made at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team or officer.

”However, there are prosecutors and judges who insist that the inventory must be conducted at the place of the buy-bust operation. This misconception should be corrected. Laws should be interpreted with reason and not by ludicrous construction,” Oaminal said, adding that witnesses such as public officials do not need to be from where the search is made.

“If the buy-bust operation was conducted at Barangay X, and the office of the apprehending team is located at Barangay Y, the elected public official serving as a witness need not come from BarangayX. Any elected public official could be made a witness,” he added.

 He said Cebu Provincial Prosecutor Pepita Jane Petralba had instructed the Cebu Provincial Anti-drug Abuse Council  to request the Provincial Board to create a resolution requesting the Supreme Court to issue a circular creating a set of guidelines on how to interpret RA 9165.

Oaminal attended CPADAC’s executive meeting Friday, where it was reported that 90 percent of drug cases nationwide has been dismissed in courts this year.

“We cannot assume malice with respect to these dismissals, as the Supreme Court has likewise made numerous interpretations of the law. There are judges who interpret the law liberally and others who construe it very strictly,” Oaminal in an article he wrote published for the Integrated Bar of the Philippines website.

CPADAC Executive Director Joey Herrera disclosed during the same meeting that some barangay officials refused to stand as witnesses in the inventory out of fear for their safety and that they believed they have no jurisdiction over where the anti-drug operation was made.

“It is outrageous to see resolutions by prosecutors in preliminary investigation and judges’ decisions showing complaints and cases which are dismissed on the ground that the inventory was not conducted right after the seizure and that the witnesses were not present during the anti-drug operation,” Oaminal stated.

He added that the presence of the witnesses in the inventory is only required after the custody of the drugs is obtained and that the witnesses need not be present during the conduct of the anti-drug operations.  (FREEMAN)