HOW do the police and other law enforcement agencies keep and destroy the illegal drugs they seized during operations?
Chief Insp. Gerard Ace Pelare, the Consolacion police commander, said they are following the provisions stated in section 21 of Republic Act (RA) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
“It’s a tedious process, but it safeguards the seized illegal drugs,” he said.
Section 21 tackles 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.”
It mandates the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency to “take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs” and other evidence seized during operations. The proper safekeeping of evidence, or “chain of custody,” is laid out in this section.
Supt. Dexter Calacar of Lapu-Lapu City Police Office said the evidence cannot be easily recycled as these have proper markings during inventory.
“The judge can ask a question in case he spots a mistake or the evidence is tampered. The attesting officer can be charged or the case may result in a dismissal,” he said in Cebuano.
Cebu City Regional Trial Court Judge Macaundas Hadjirasul said in 2014 that he dismissed cases when the credibility of the law enforcer is not acceptable, the search and seizure of evidence are dubious, and the arrests of suspects are illegal.
The acquittals, which are executory and not appealable, also resulted from the police’s failure to follow the procedures or “chain of custody” set by RA 9165.
Last September, Police Regional Office 7 Director Debold Sinas said eight of the 65 relieved Talisay City police officers admitted stealing packs of shabu but denied recycling evidence.
In RA 9165, section 21.1 states that the apprehending team shall immediately conduct a “physical inventory and photograph of the seized evidence” in the presence of the arrested person or his representative/counsel, journalist and a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative.
This provision, however, was amended by RA 10640 of 2014, which no longer requires a journalist to witness the inventory if an elected official and a DOJ representative have already signed as witnesses.
Last Nov. 9, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines launched the “Sign Against the Sign” campaign, urging Congress to amend the law and exclude journalists among the witnesses in anti-drug operations.
Within 24 hours, according to section 21.2, the seized evidence “shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination.”
Section 21.3 states that a certification of the laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the examiner, shall be issued within 24 hours after receiving the evidence.
PDEA 7 information officer Leia Albiar said they have an agreement with the Police Regional Office 7 that the illegal drugs seized during provincial operations will be taken to the police crime laboratory.
The evidence confiscated in Metro Cebu drug busts of both PDEA and police will be in the custody of the PDEA laboratory.
“In RA 9165, it is stated that PDEA alone should have the custody of the evidence, but we find this difficult because of sheer number of operations and we have few chemists. The chemists also have court duties,” Albiar said.
In section 21.4, the court, after the filing of a criminal case, is required to conduct an ocular inspection of the evidence within 72 hours. Afterwards, the court through the PDEA shall proceed with the destruction or burning or disposal of evidence within 24 hours.
Prior to their destruction, representative samples of the evidence shall be taken and duly weighed and recorded by the forensic laboratory, which conducted the examination for presentation as evidence in the trial court, according to Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) Regulation 1 series of 2002.
After the trial against an arrested drug dealer is completed, the remaining evidence will be destroyed via a court order. (KAL)