The court’s acquittal of two of the so-called “Alabang boys” of illegal drug charges last week due to a technicality has, as expected, triggered a wave of criticisms.
But more than the criticisms, the result of this celebrated case seriously indicted the integrity of the five pillars of the country’s criminal justice system to serve the ends of justice.
These pillars are, namely law enforcement, prosecution, the judiciary, penology, and the community. As one popular idiom says, a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. This means any process, organization or system is vulnerable because the weakest part can always damage, ruin or break the whole body.
This was highlighted in the case of the “Alabang boys.” The case earned this dubious title from the arrest of three young men in a buy-bust operation by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on Sept. 19, 2008 in the posh Ayala Alabang Village in Muntinlupa City.
Three years later, Judge Juanita Guerrero of the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204 dismissed the case against the two accused. The judge found serious “lapses” by the arresting agents of the PDEA in the custody of the illegal drugs seized from accused Jorge Joseph and Richard Brodett. They were arrested for allegedly selling 60 pieces of Ecstacy tablets worth P750 each to an undercover PDEA agent. Several grams of cocaine and dried marijuana leaves were also recovered inside the car of Brodett.
Guerrero said PDEA’s buy-bust operation against Joseph and Brodett was “valid,” but “the link in the custody of the drug evidence,” as required by Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, “has been broken.” “The failure of the prosecution therefore to establish all the links in the chain of custody is fatal to the case,” Judge Guerrero said.
Section 21 of the law covers the “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.” Under this provision, the law requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized illegal drugs and other evidence in the presence of the suspect(s), suspect’s counsel or representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These witnesses are required to sign copies of the inventory.
In her ruling, Judge Guerrero noted that the lapses could have been explained had former PDEA chief retired Gen. Dionisio Santiago or the PDEA arresting team’s head Maj. Ferdinand Marcelino been called to “justify” the lapses before the court. “In this case, the prosecution did not even acknowledge and discuss the reason for the missing links in the chain,” the judge pointed out.
With the acquittal of Joseph and Brodett, the only remaining member of the “Alabang boys” still with pending charges is Richard Tecson, whose drug trafficking case has yet to be resolved by the Quezon City RTC Branch 227.
The case of the “Alabang boys” caught public attention after Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño and some of his deputies at the DOJ were questioned on alleged lapses and improprieties in handling the case. In particular, State Prosecutor John Resado, who was the first to dismiss the case, was charged with allegedly accepting bribe money from the families of the accused.
The controversy led to several congressional hearings and the issuance of Administrative Order 253 by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in January 2009. AO 253 directed the automatic review by the Office of the President of all decisions and resolutions involving the dismissal of illegal drug cases. After the conduct of a fact-finding probe on the bribery charges, the Palace subsequently reversed the findings of the DOJ and ordered the filing of cases against the three suspects in court.
Now retired from the government, Zuño was quoted as saying that the court decision on the “Alabang boys” has vindicated him when he approved the dismissal of the charges due precisely to the PDEA’s mishandling of the evidence. Unfortunately, however, Zuño’s vindication came too late in the day. At the time these allegations came out, Zuño was among the popular nominees for the Ombudsman post. He lost the nomination to his former boss at the DOJ, Merceditas Gutierrez, who was then Mrs. Arroyo’s chief presidential legal counsel.
Following the setback in this “Alabang boys” case, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima vowed to do something to prevent a repeat of the bungling of what should have been an open-and-shut case. The prosecution team, as De Lima rightly pointed out, could only do so much with the evidence if law enforcers have done their job in accordance with the law.
Past experiences with “bad eggs” in the police service, De Lima cited, resulted in such stringent requirements of the law to prevent “planted” evidence. However, it resulted in “certain procedural provisions (in the law) that are very difficult to comply with.”
De Lima admitted that such strict provisions of the existing law need to be relaxed by way of amendments that only Congress could do. She would rather have Congress revisit these specific provisions of Republic Act 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act that was passed into law in 2002.
De Lima believes certain provisions of RA 9165 are a bit impractical since they make it harder not only for prosecutors but more so for law enforcers to run after drug offenders, especially the international drug syndicates. For one, the DOJ recommends that the Rules of Court be adopted where only two disinterested parties are required as witnesses during the inventory of seized evidence.
Among all kinds of cases being prosecuted by the DOJ, De Lima revealed, those involving illegal drugs have the lowest conviction rate in court — a measly one percent. She lamented that DOJ prosecutors have been losing drug cases in courts for so many reasons not only due to a technicality such as in the “Alabang boys” case but also due to the stringent provisions of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
Dura lex, sed lex, as the legal maxim has it. The law is harsh but that is the law. And it can only be undone by a new law passed by Congress.