Drug Buy-Bust Operations – Are They Valid?

In the prosecution of drug cases, the burden of proof or, in legal parlance, onus probandi lies with the arresting officers to show that there is no irregularity in the conduct of a buy-bust operation, implementation of a search warrant, in flagrante arrest or any other arrest or seizure against a person arrested for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The foregoing is based on jurisprudential principle declared in several cases including the 2023 case of People of the Philippines versus Gerald Flores y Alagdon et al., docketed as GR. No. 262686, wherein the Supreme Court categorically stated that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of law enforcement duties and functions could not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Verily, law enforcement officers and personnel are required to strictly adhere to the Supreme Court’s guidelines issued with and adherence to the Chain of Custody Rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, in order to prove the integrity and evidentiary value of the supposed illegal drugs, viz:

1. The marking of the seized dangerous drugs must be done:
   1. Immediately upon confiscation;
   2. at the place of confiscation; and
   3. In the presence of the offender (unless the offender eluded the arrest).

2. The conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the seized dangerous drugs must be done:
   1. Immediately after seizure and confiscation;
   2. 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; and
   3. In the presence of at least two (2) insulating witnesses, namely, an elected public official; and a National Prosecution Service representative or a media representative.

3. In case of any deviation from the foregoing, the prosecution must positively acknowledge the same and prove (1) justifiable ground/s for non-compliance and (2) the proper preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

In addition thereto, the prosecution is required to prove the identities and credentials of the mandatory insulating witnesses, along with their presence at or near the place where the arrest and seizure for the immediate inventory and marking of the confiscated items.

The non-compliance with the foregoing procedural requirements is an irregularity that casts reasonable doubt on the identity of the illegal drug as the same item seized from an accused as well as the evidentiary value thereof which may lead to the dismissal of a drug case.