Safeguarding Rights Strict Adherence TO THE Three Witness Rule IN Drug Cases

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has once again emphasized the mandatory nature of the three-witness rule in drug cases, acquitting an accused for the prosecution's failure to comply with this requirement. The case of People v. Dalupang (G.R. No. 235469, October 2, 2019) serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement that the integrity of seized evidence is paramount, and shortcuts in procedure can lead to the acquittal of an accused.

The Case and Its Background

Abdullah Dalupang was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by PDEA agents in Iligan City on May 1, 2014.

The prosecution alleged that Dalupang sold a small plastic sachet of shabu to a poseur-buyer for P500.00. After the sale, the arresting team found three more sachets in plain view inside Dalupang's vehicle. The seized items were brought to the police station, where an inventory was conducted in the presence of only two witnesses: a media representative and an elected barangay official.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted Dalupang. However, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered his acquittal.

The Three-Witness Rule Under Section 21

Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs be conducted in the presence of three specific witnesses: (1) a representative from the media, (2) a representative from the Department of Justice, and (3) any elected public official. These witnesses must sign the inventory sheet and receive a copy.

In this case, only two witnesses were present. The PDEA agents claimed that no witnesses could be found at the crime scene for security reasons, so they proceeded to the police station where the inventory was eventually conducted with the two witnesses.

The Burden of Proving Justifiable Grounds

The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution bears the burden of proving that there were justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the three-witness rule. Mere statements of unavailability are not enough. The prosecution must show that the apprehending team exerted earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the required witnesses.

Citing People v. Ramos and People v. Umipang, the Court explained that police officers are given sufficient time — from receiving information about drug activities until the arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and make necessary arrangements to comply with Section 21. A "sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives" is considered a flimsy excuse.

Insufficient Explanation in the Affidavits

The Court found that the affidavits of the PDEA agents were insufficient. The agents merely stated that they "hardly found witnesses" and that the inventory was done in the presence of a media representative and a barangay official. They did not specify what actions they took to find the required witnesses — such as contacting the DOJ or attempting to secure other public officials.

The Court stressed that this was an organized buy-bust operation, giving the agents ample opportunity to prepare and comply with the law. Their failure to do so cast doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

The Importance of Procedural Compliance

The Court reiterated that the conviction of an accused, who enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence, must be based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence — not on the weakness of the defense. The failure to comply with the three-witness rule, without any justifiable ground, warranted an acquittal.

This ruling aligns with the Court's consistent stance in cases like People v. Silayan (G.R. No. 229362, June 19, 2019), where the Court acquitted an accused for the same reason.

Practical Takeaways

• The three-witness rule is mandatory. The presence of a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official during inventory and photographing is required by law.
• Earnest efforts must be shown. If the required witnesses are not present, the prosecution must prove that the police genuinely tried to secure them. Vague claims of unavailability will not suffice.
• Preparation is key. Law enforcement teams have time to prepare for buy-bust operations and should make arrangements for witnesses beforehand.
• Affidavits matter. The sworn statements of apprehending officers must state their compliance with Section 21, or explain the justification for non-compliance and the steps taken to preserve the integrity of the evidence.
• For the accused, procedural lapses can be a defense. A violation of the three-witness rule, without justifiable grounds, can lead to acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.