CEBU, Philippines - The rate of dismissal of drug cases will now be lessened after a provision of the Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, believed to be the cause of high dismissal rate, has been amended.
The Sotto Amendment to the Anti -Drugs Law or Republic Act 10640, a law authored by Senator Vicente C. Sotto III, amended Section 21 of RA 9165, which deals with the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs.
Section 21 provides that the apprehending team, which has the initial custody and control of the seized drugs shall conduct physical inventory and photograph the drugs immediately after confiscation “in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”
However, former Dangerous Drugs Board Undersecretary Atty. Clarence Paul Oaminal said the original provision of the law has been the subject and cause of the dismissal of majority of the drug cases filed before the Prosecutors Office and with the Courts.
With this, the original provision has been amended, which now states that the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”
“Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. Provided, finally, that non-compliance of 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 and custody over said items,” the amended provision stated.
Therefore, Oaminal explained, even if there is no witness from the National Prosecution Service, as long as there is an elected public official or media, there is substantial compliance of the law.
“In fact, the law is clear that non-compliance or failure to comply shall not render the seizure void or invalid, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value has been preserved by the law enforcers,” he further explained.
Quoting Sotto, Oaminal said the amendment will have more drug peddlers convicted, as he clarified that the procedures are often misinterpreted by law enforcers, prosecutors and judges.
“The SAD-Law is a sad law for the drug syndicates and pushers for it will surely lessen dismissal of drug cases,” Oaminal, in a statement sent to The FREEMAN, said further.
It has been reported that 80 to 90 percent of drug cases nationwide has been dismissed on the grounds of failure to comply with Section 21.
Further, Oaminal said the amendment also clarified the issue on the place where the physical inventory and photo capturing is conducted.
He said the inventory will be conducted at the very place where the warrant was served if the seizure is aided with search warrants. In warrantless seizures such as buy-bust, it shall be conducted in the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.
Senate Bill 2273 sponsored by Sotto has been signed into law by President Aquino on July 15, 2014.
Sotto is now calling DDB to conduct lectures and seminars to strengthen the knowledge on the anti-drugs law among judges, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies especially on the amendment of the law, Oaminal said.
The amendment was the result of the suggestions of law enforcers and prosecutors to Sotto when he was still Chairman of DDB. (FREEMAN)