SC acquits 8 jailed over illegal drugs
It was truly “Merry Christmas” and a “Happy New Year” for eight persons who have been acquitted by the Supreme Court (SC) of drug charges and ordered immediately released from jail.
The SC’s decisions on the cases were promulgated the past two months but were made public only last December, the latest of which was last December 28.
In ordering their acquittal, the SC ruled that law enforcement agents failed to follow strictly or disregarded the procedures laid down in Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) on the handling and custody of seized illegal drugs.
Acquitted and ordered released from detention were Jan Mark Viliran, alias “Mac-Mac” who was sentenced in 2017 to life imprisonment; Esmeralda L. Nagai, alias “Esme” who was sentenced in 2017 to a maximum of 17 years imprisonment; Richard U. Ral who was sentenced in 2017 to life imprisonment; Jay Bucotan Cabangon, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2016; Mervin H. Mabait and Ramond H. Ayroso, who were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2015; and Ricardo C. Gaitan and Dante V. Suazo, who were both sentenced to life imprisonment in 2016.
All convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals but on appeal before the SC, the High Tribunal found lapses on the part of the enforcement agents in the handling of the seized illegal drugs.
In one of the decisions, the SC said: “In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti (body of the crime) of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court.”
“Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants a verdict of acquittal,” it said.
It pointed out that Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, “prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases.”
It stressed that “to ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody” for the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Citing its previous decision, the SC said:
“First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
“This is the chain of custody rule. It came to fore due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs which render them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise.”
It pointed out that when the chain of custody is broken, the identity of the seized items could not be established beyond reasonable doubt.
With its decision in six cases involving eight detained persons, the SC directed the Bureau of Corrections and, in the case of Nagai the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City, to order their immediate release from detention unless being held for some other lawful cause or causes.
The two correctional agencies were directed to report their actions within five days from receipt of the decisions which are immediately executory.