Obstacles to the anti-drug campaign

Turf war is not the only hindrance to the renewed campaign against dangerous drugs.Ironically, our basic law itself may hamper the campaign. Under our system even notorious drug pushers,drug lords or drug traffickers already known to the police also have constitutional rights. Hence so many cases against them have been dismissed on the purely technical ground that the prohibited substances found in their possession are inadmissible in evidence because of violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches or illegal arrests. Like this case of Mr. Chong who has already been pinpointed as a Chinese drug lord.

Two cases were filed against Chong arising from a single incident.The first was for delivering, distributing and dispatching in transit 999.43 grams of shabu and the second, for having in his custody, possession and control 5,578.68 grams of the same regulated drug. The incident started when the drug courier of Chong by the name of Rose volunteered to cooperate with the agents of the narcotics command by naming Chong as the source of the drugs after she was apprehended in a series of buy-bust operations.

With the help of Rose, Chong was traced in a seafront condominium at Roxas Blvd (unit 22) which was placed under surveillance.Then a team of Narcom operatives was formed for the entrapment of Chong. From a nearby parking lot, Rose called Chong through her cell phone and ordered one kilo of shabu.

The entrapment plan was carried out succesfully when Chong was caught in the act of delivering the 999.43 grams of shabu outside unit 22 after about three and a half hours of waiting.The agents saw the door of the unit open as a man went out to hand Rose a transparent plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance. Then they pounced on the man and arrested him after Rose identified him as Chong.This led to the filing of the first case against Chong involving the 999.43 grams of shabu.

In the same operation,the agents subsequently radioed their superiors in the other car and coordinated with the security guard on duty to make a search of the unit. The search yielded a black bag with several plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance found in an open cabinet on the second floor. It was examined by the agents in the presence of their superior, and of Chong and his girlfriend Naty, who turned out to be the owner of the condominium unit.Upon proper examination,the substance found in the unit was also determined to be 5,578.68 grams of shabu.This led to the filing of the second case against Chong.

After trial, the trial court convicted Chong in both cases.Chong questioned the decision on appeal, contending, among others, that the shabu seized inside the condominium unit was constitutionally inadmissible as evidence because it was seized without a search warrant.

The Supreme Court said that Chong was correct with respect to the shabu seized inside unit 22. He was arrested outside said condominium unit and in the act of delivering to Rose a bag of shabu. Unit 22 was not even his residence but that of his girlfriend Naty and that he was merely a sojourner therein.Hence it can hardly be said that the inner portion of the unit constituted a permissible area within his reach or immediate control, to justify a warrantless search therein.

The sole justification for the validity of the warrantless search is the lawful arrest. So the same must be limited to and circumscribed by the subject, time and place of the arrest.To be valid, the warrantless search must be:(1) only on the person of the suspect and the dangerous weapons or any proof of the commission of the offense found in him;(2) conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter; and(3) only at the place where the suspect was arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his immediate control.

The search in unit 22 is therefore illegal for being violative of one’s basic constitutional right and guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.So the 5, 578.68 grams of shabu seized on the occasion thereof is inadmissible in evidence for being fruits of a poisonous tree.Chong cannot be convicted for having custody and possession of them.But they should not be returned to Chong notwithstanding the illegality of their seizure because they are prohibited by law.

What saved the day for the government was that the inadmissibility of the 5,578.68 grams of shabu in evidence did not totally exonerate Chong.The illegal search on unit 22 was preceded by a valid arrest. Chong was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of the entrapment conducted by the Narcom based on the information of Rose. The agents saw him handing a bag of shabu weighing 999.43 grams which is admissible in evidence, being the fruit of the crime.So Chong is still guilty of the charge of selling and delivering 999.43 grams of shabu for which he should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua ( Pp.vs. Che Chun Ting, G.R. 130568-69 March 21, 2000)

The fight against the drug menace is therefore not really even. While the drug lords are not shackled by any rules and could use all means, fair or foul,the State is bound by constitutional restrictions.This means that law enforcement agents must not only be well trained and well equipped in the detection and arrests of drug pushers and traffickers. They must also be aware of the constitional rules on arrests, searches and seizures.This is a big obstacle to the successful campaign.Law enforcers can’t be expected to know all these rules as even lawyers are sometimes not so well versed in them. Most of the time cases are dismissed because of the bungling of our law enforcers.The worst part is that this bungling may be due to feigned ignorance arranged by the drug lords themselves for them to get off the hook.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]