Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! I hope this email finds you well. I’m writing to you because my family is in a terrible situation, and we desperately need some legal insight. My cousin, Marco Velasco, was arrested last week near his apartment in Barangay 176, Caloocan City. The police are charging him with selling marijuana based on what they called a buy-bust operation.

However, Marco tells a completely different story. He insists he was just outside their gate, waiting for a friend, when plainclothes officers suddenly approached him. They asked him if he knew someone named ‘Alias Chico,’ which he didn’t. He said they immediately frisked him, took the P750 he had in his wallet (which was for groceries), and then one officer pulled out a small sachet of what they claimed was marijuana from his own pocket, not Marco’s. Marco swears he never sold or possessed any drugs.

He also mentioned that the officers became angry when he couldn’t give them more money, which he didn’t have. They took him to the station, and only later did they present the alleged marked money and the sachet of marijuana. According to Marco, they didn’t list the items seized or take photos right there where they arrested him, nor were there any barangay officials or media present. We only heard about the ‘inventory’ being done at the police station hours later.

We are confused and scared. Does the police’s failure to immediately inventory and photograph the alleged drugs at the scene, in front of witnesses, make the arrest illegal? Can the case be dismissed because of these procedural mistakes? Marco insists he was framed. Can his word stand against the police officers’ claims? We don’t know what to do or what his rights are. Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully yours,
Kenneth Tiongson

Dear Kenneth,

Thank you for reaching out. I understand this is a very stressful and worrying time for you and your family. Dealing with an arrest, especially under circumstances that raise questions about procedure and potential frame-up, is incredibly difficult. Let’s break down the legal principles involved in your cousin Marco’s situation.

The core issues revolve around the validity of the alleged buy-bust operation and, crucially, the handling of the evidence seized, specifically the marijuana. Philippine law sets strict procedures for anti-drug operations to protect citizens’ rights and ensure the integrity of the evidence. While police officers generally benefit from a presumption that they perform their duties regularly, this presumption is not absolute and can be challenged, especially when procedural safeguards appear to have been bypassed. The defense of frame-up, while common, requires strong evidence to overcome the officers’ testimony, but procedural irregularities by the police can lend credence to such claims.

Navigating Drug Arrests: Understanding Buy-Bust Operations and Evidence Rules

A buy-bust operation is a recognized, legitimate method used by law enforcement to catch individuals in the act of illegally selling dangerous drugs. For a prosecution for illegal sale to succeed, the government must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the transaction actually occurred and that the accused knowingly sold a prohibited substance.

“To sustain a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another and (2) knew that what was sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.”

Similarly, for illegal possession, the prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly possessed the drug without legal authority.

“To sustain a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.”

Your cousin’s defense of denial and frame-up directly contradicts the police narrative. While police officers’ testimonies are often given weight due to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, this presumption can be overturned. Clear and convincing evidence showing that the officers deviated from standard procedures, acted with improper motive, or that the events could not have logically occurred as they described can weaken or destroy this presumption. The alleged demand for money, if substantiated, could indicate improper motive.

A critical aspect in drug cases is the chain of custody of the seized substance. This refers to the documented handling of the evidence from the moment it is seized until it is presented in court. Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) lays down specific procedures for this.

“The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof…” (Section 21(1), RA 9165)

The rule requiring immediate on-site inventory and photography in the presence of required witnesses (accused/representative, DOJ, media, elected official) is a crucial safeguard. Its purpose is to prevent tampering, substitution, or planting of evidence. Failure to strictly comply with this procedure is a serious irregularity that the defense can highlight.

However, the law itself provides a saving clause. Non-compliance is not automatically fatal to the prosecution’s case, provided certain conditions are met:

“…Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.” (Section 21(a), Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165)

This means the prosecution must (1) provide a justifiable reason for the non-compliance (e.g., safety risks at the scene, urgency) and (2) prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were preserved despite the procedural lapses. This preservation is often demonstrated by showing that the drug was properly marked at the time of seizure, handled securely, delivered promptly to the forensic chemist, and identified as the same item presented in court. If the police cannot justify the non-compliance OR if serious doubts arise about whether the seized item was the same one tested and presented in court (i.e., the chain of custody was broken or compromised), the case against the accused weakens significantly.

In Marco’s situation, the alleged failure to conduct the inventory and photography immediately at the place of arrest, with the required witnesses, is a significant point. His lawyer should vigorously question the officers about this during trial, demand justification for the lapse, and scrutinize every step of the handling process to challenge the integrity of the evidence and bolster the claim of frame-up.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Secure Legal Counsel Immediately: Marco needs a competent lawyer specializing in drug cases as soon as possible. An experienced attorney can assess the situation, protect his rights, and plan the best defense strategy.
• Document Everything: Write down every detail Marco remembers about the arrest: time, place, officers involved (if names or badge numbers were seen), exact sequence of events, specific words exchanged, any potential witnesses nearby, and the circumstances of the alleged inventory at the station.
• Identify Potential Witnesses: Were there neighbours, bystanders, or CCTV cameras near the arrest location that might support Marco’s version of events? Any corroborating evidence is valuable.
• Challenge the Chain of Custody: Marco’s lawyer will focus on the procedural lapses, particularly the failure to comply with Section 21 regarding immediate inventory and photography with required witnesses at the scene.
• Question the ‘Justifiable Grounds’: The prosecution must explain why they didn’t follow procedure. If their reason is weak or unsubstantiated, it strengthens the defense.
• Focus on Evidence Integrity: Scrutinize how the alleged drug was marked, handled, stored, and tested. Any gap or inconsistency casts doubt on whether the item presented in court is the same one allegedly seized from Marco.
• Counter the Presumption of Regularity: Use the procedural lapses and Marco’s consistent testimony of frame-up (including the alleged extortion attempt) to argue against the presumption that the officers acted properly.
• Understand the Charges: Be clear about the specific charges (illegal sale vs. possession) and the quantity of drugs involved, as penalties under RA 9165 vary significantly based on these factors.

The situation is serious, but procedural safeguards exist for a reason. By challenging the irregularities in the buy-bust operation and the handling of evidence, and by presenting Marco’s defense consistently, his lawyer can work towards the best possible outcome. Remember that the burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.