WHAT ARE THE LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF A MEMBER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN TESTIFYING AS PROSECUTION WITNESSES IN DANGEROUS DRUG CASES?
Any member of law enforcement agencies or any other government official and employee who, after due notice, fails or refuse intentionally or negligently, to appear as a witness for the prosecution in any proceedings, involving violation of this Act, without any valid reason shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), in addition to the administrative liability he/she may be meted out by his/her immediate superior and/or appropriate body.
The immediate superior of the member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2) months and one (1) day but not more than six (6) years and a fine of not less than ten thousand (P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if despite due notice to them and to the witness concerned the former does not exert reasonable effort to present the latter to the court
The member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee mentioned in the proceeding paragraphs shall not be transferred or re-assigned to any other government office located in another territorial jurisdiction during the pendency of the case in court. However, the concerned member of the law enforcement agency or government employee may be transferred or re-assigned for compelling reason: Provided, that his/her immediate superior shall notify the court where the case is pending of the order to transfer or re-assign, within twenty-four (24) hours from its approval: Provided further, that his/her immediate superior shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2) months and one (1)day but not more than six (6) years and a fine of not less than two (2) months and one (1) day but not more than six (6) years and a fine of not less than Ten thousand (P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from public office, should he/she fails to notify the court of such order to transfer or re-assign.
DELAY AND BUNGLING IN THE
PROSECUTION OF DRUG CASES
Any government officer employee tasked with the prosecution of drug-related cases under this Act, who through patent laxity, inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay or deliberately causes the unsuccessful prosecution and/or dismissal of the said drug cases, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years without prejudice to his/her prosecution under the pertinent provision of the Revised Penal Code.
RECORDS TO BE KEPT BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
The DOJ shall keep a confidential record of the proceedings on suspension of sentence and shall not be used for any purpose other than to determine whether or not a person accused under this Act is a first-time offender. (Sec. 71)
LIABILITY OF A PERSON WHO VIUOLATES
THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS
The Penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years and a fine ranging from One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00), shall be imposed upon any person who, having official custody of or access to the confidential records of any drug dependent under voluntary submission programs, or any one who, having gained possession of said records, whether lawfully or not, reveals their content to any person other than those charged with the prosecution of the offense under this Act and its implementation. The maximum penalty shall be imposed, in addition to the absolute perpetual disqualification from any public office, when the offender is a government official or employee. Should the records be used for unlawful purposes, such as blackmail of the drug defendant of the members of his/her family, the penalty imposed for the crime of violation of confidentiality shall be in addition to whatever crime he/she convicted of. (Sec. 72)
LIABILITY OF A PARENTS, SPOUSE OR
GUARDIAN WHO REFUSE TO COOPERATE
WITH THE BOARD OR ANY CONCERNED AGENCY
Any parent, spouse or guardian who, without valid reason parent, spouse or guardian who, without valid reason, refuses to cooperate with the Board or any concerned agency in the treatment and rehabilitation of a drug defendant who is a minor, or in any manner, prevents or delay the after-care, follow-up or other programs for the welfare of the accused drug defendant, whether under voluntary submission program or compulsory submission program, may be cited in contempt by the court.
COST-SHARING IN THE TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION OF A DRUG DEFENDENT
The parents, spouse, guardian or any relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity of any person who is confined under the voluntary submission program or compulsory submission program shall be charged a certain percentage of the cost of his/her treatment and rehabilitation, the guidelines of which shall be formulated by the DSWD taking into consideration the economic status of the family of the person confined. The guidelines therein formulated shall be implemented by a social worker of the local government unit. (Sec. 74)
LIMITED APPLICABILITY OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act. 3814) as amended, shall not apply to the provision of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided therein shall be reclusion perpetua to death. (Sec. 98)
EXCEPTION TO NECESSITY
OF A SEARCH WARRANT
There is no doubt that the warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting officer to make a search upon the person arrested. An officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any money or property found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was in fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or of escaping, which may be used as evidence in the trial of the case. (People v. Musa; GR 96177, 1/27/93)
LIKE ALIBI, FRAME UP IS EASY
TO FABRICATE, BUT DIFFICULT
TO PROVE
Frame-up, like alibi, is a defense that has been viewed by courts with disfavor for it can just as easily be connected and is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecution arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order for that defense to prosper, the evidence adduced must be clear and convincing. (People v. Girang; GR 27949, 2/1/95)
BUY-BUST OPERATION
Is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of the offense. Entrapment has received judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards. (People v. Basilgo; GR 107327, 8/5/94)
BUY BUST OPERATION: PDEA NEED NOT BE INVOLVED THEREIN
Appellant would next argue that the evidence against him was obtained in violation of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 because the buy-bust operation was made without any involvement of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Prescinding therefrom, he concludes that the prosecution’s evidence, both testimonial and documentary, was inadmissible having been procured in violation of his constitutional right against illegal arrest.
The argument is specious.
Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 reads:
SEC. 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. – The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their task as detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time that the organizational structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number of graduates of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided, That such personnel who are affected shall have the option of either being integrated into the PDEA or remain with their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein by the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA shall be extended appointments to positions similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their respective positions in their original mother agencies.
The transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units provided for in this Section shall take effect within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be given until five (5) years to finally decide to join the PDEA.
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as provided for in their respective organic laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any of the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters.
Cursory read, the foregoing provision is silent as to the consequences of failure on the part of the law enforcers to transfer drug-related cases to the PDEA, in the same way that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 is also silent on the matter. But by no stretch of imagination could this silence be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal nor evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.
(People vs. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007)
POSEUR-BUYER, GENERALLY
NEED NOT TESTIFY
The testimony of the poseur-buyer or of the confidential informant is no longer material considering that accused-appellant’s drug pushing was positively attested to. Moreover, informants are generally not presumed in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police. (People v. Girang; GR 97949, 2/1/95)
EFFECT OF LIMITATION UNDER
SECTION 19, ART. VII OF THE
CONSTITUTION ON GRANT OF PARDON
The “conviction by final judgment” limitation under Section 19, Article VII of the present Constitution prohibits the grant of pardon, whether full or conditional, to an accused during the pendency of his appeal from his conviction by the trial court. Any application therefor, if one is made, should not be acted upon or the process toward its grant should not be begun unless the appeal is withdrawn. Accordingly, the agencies or instrumentalities of the Government concerned must require proof from the accused that he has not appealed from his conviction or that he has withdrawn his appeal Such proof may be in the form of a certification issued by the trial court or the appellate court, as the case may be The acceptance of the pardon shall not operate as an abandonment or waiver of the appeal, and the release of an accused by virtue of a pardon, commutation of sentence, or parole before the withdrawal of an appeal shall render those responsible therefor administratively liable Accordingly, those in custody of the accused must not solely rely on the pardon as a basis for the release of the accused from confinement. (People v. Maquilan)
