The review of Alabang boys' case is up to the DoJ: Malacaang By MADEL R.

SABATER August 26, 2011, 1:48pm

MANILA, Philippines -- Malacaang said it will be up to the Department of Justice (DoJ) to decide whether or not to review the case of the so-called Alabang boys, of which two had been acquitted of violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte, in a press briefing Friday, also said that if allegations would be proven to be true that some prosecutors had accepted bribery for the acquittal of Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph, then there will be due consequences.

Ang laging sinasabi ng Pangulo, pag may nagkasala, dapat parusahan yun ang isa sa mga unang nasabi kay (Jutice) Secretary (Leila) De Lima at alam niya na ginagawa ng DoJ na mailatag ng mabuti ang mga kasong kanilang isasampa [The President has always said that those who have done wrong should be punished that was one of his first directives to Secretary De Lima and he knows that DoJ is doing its job in properly filing the cases], Valte said.

Alabang Boys acquitted Are you surprised? August 26, 2011 10 Comments By Rassa Robles

Dont be. According to a study on the Philippine drug situation by the US State Department:

Out of 13,667 drug cases filed from 2003 to 2007, only 4,790 led to convictions (mostly cases of simple possession). The rest were either acquitted or dismissed.

Much more than todays acquittal is at stake here.

The acquittal is a signal to law enforcers and the authorities that they can make all the arrests they want in drug cases. But in the end they will lose most of these cases. The suspects will walk free.

The case of the Alabang boys was a very high-profile case that drew the attention of the highest officials of the land. The case had so many red flags going up that then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself stepped in and ordered the case to proceed.

You see, one of the suspects was a nephew of a close aide of hers. And Arroyo owned units in one of the condo buildings constructed by the suspects family.

She did not want to give anyone the impression she was soft on illegal drugs.

Forgive me for raising my eyebrows when I heard the suspects lawyer triumphantly say after the acquittal of his rich clients that justice was served today (They own that store in shopping malls called The Rudy Project, you know).

Read my piece below and youll see why.

It was what authorities in Manila call a routine operation By Rassa Robles

In the early hours of September 21, 2009, undercover agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) successfully clinched a deal to buy 60 tablets of the banned drug Ecstasy from two alleged dealers inside the posh gated community of Alabang, south of Manila. When the operatives closed in and one of the suspects tried to escape by driving away, the agents shot out the tires of the fleeing car.

They also claimed finding cocaine and marijuana inside the car. As the agents hauled the two young men to PDEA headquarters, one of them allegedly squealed, enabling them to set a trap for a third prey that day.

But the prize the agents snagged may have been more than the government bargained for. The case has touched off a string of bizarre events, allegations of bribery in high places, suspensions from public office, a congressional investigation and two disbarment cases.

The three suspected drug pushers Richard Brodett, then 25; Jorge Joseph, 22 then and Joseph Tecson,

27 then were scions of families with wealth and influence. Young Brodett turned out to be a nephew of a close aide of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. His family turned out to have a stake in a property firm called the Burgundy Group which constructed a building where President Arroyo happens to own a condominium unit.

PDEA chief Dionisio Santiago told the Morning Post in an exclusive interview that despite such connections President Arroyo personally ordered him not to release the Alabang boys (the name comes from the exclusive subdivision where the initial entrapment occurred and where the young Brodett lives). PDEA is a special agency created by Congress in 2002 and attached to the Office of the President.

Dont release them no matter what, dont let the influential interfere in this case, Santiago quoted Arroyo as telling him on January 20, 2008. That shows you shes hanging tough against illegal drugs, he said.

Illegal drugs: a Philippine sunrise industry

The case has also cast a light on a sordid network which has turned the Philippines into a major hub for drug trafficking and made narcotics a local sunrise industry earning from $6.4 billion to US$8.4 billion yearly.

The drug situation in the Philippines could be considered a national security threat, warned Santiago, a former Armed Forces chief-of-staff. During the interview, he named prominent personalities allegedly involved in drugs and noted that some who used to be mayors were now elected congressmen.

There is narco-politics all over the country [with] politicians at all levels involved as financiers or protectors of drug syndicates, he claimed.

The agency is running after seven transnational drug syndicates, all with links to the Chinese mainland, he said.

The Philippines was identified by the United Nations 2008 World Drug Report as a major manufacturing and trafficking locationa significant producer, transit country and consumer of crystal methamphetamine (shabu).

Drugs and raw materials smuggled into the country travel a circuitous route, the report said. Originating

mostly from Yunnan province, these passed Guangxi, Guangdong and Fujian provinces before being shipped out of Hong Kong.

After these are processed in clandestine labs outside Manila the produce is exported to Korea, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan province, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US mainland and Guam.

The same report said the Philippines in 2006 had the worlds highest number of methamphetamine users (6% of residents ages 15 to 64); followed by El Salvador at 3%. China and Hong Kong jointly had 0.2% since heroin and opium were the preferred drugs there.

PDEA said an estimated 6.7 million Filipinos use marijuana and amphetamines.

A 2009 report on drugs issued by the US State Department praised both the PDEA and the police for dismantling nine clandestine mega-laboratories in 2007, each capable of making over 1,000 kilograms of shabu per production cycle.

Nagging problem: low conviction rate

But nagging problems remain, the US foreign office said: Out of 13,667 drug cases filed from 2003 to 2007, only 4,790 led to convictions (most of which were cases of simple possession). The rest were either acquitted or dismissed.

It blamed the low conviction rate on pervasive problems in law enforcement and criminal justice system such as corruption, low morale, inadequate resources and salaries, and lack of cooperation between police and prosecutors.

Dismissal order: prepared by suspects lawyer

The possible scale of such problems was recently laid bare when Felisberto Verano Jr,lawyer of the Alabang boys, made a shocking admission that he tried to get his clients released and their case dismissed by preparing such an order using the justice departments official stationery and somehow getting this document placed on Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalezs desk two days before Christmas, awaiting his signature.

The justice undersecretary, Ricardo Blancaflor, whose office had relayed that order to his superiors desk was placed under investigation. He denied giving Verano, his law school fraternity mate, undue privilege. He also denied receiving a 2.6 million pesos payoff.

As for Verano, a disbarment suit was filed against him before the Supreme Court but nothing came of it. When it was filed, he merely shrugged it off. A lot of lawyers get disbarment cases. This is my third, he told The Morning Post.

I dont see anything wrong [with my action] because I just prepared the order and its up to the secretaryto sign. It would be a different matter if I had forged his signature, he said.

Besides, he said, he was merely making sure that a resolution dismissing the case which State Prosecutor John Resado had issued as early as December 2, 2008 was carried out.

The plan was foiled when Justice Secretary Gonzalez refused to sign the order because it had misspelled his name and he did not want to be smeared by allegations of massive payoffs.

Days earlier, PDEAs head of Special Enforcement Services, Major Ferdinand Marcelino, had gone public with an admission that he had thrice rejected bribes to release the boys whose entrapment he had supervised. I was offered twice with three million pesos and it went up to 20 million pesos, Major Marcelino said. His agency warned, without giving proof, that money was changing hands inside the justice department for the same reason.

Suspects lawyer: was law teacher of prosecutor who dismissed the case originally

Proscutor John Resado and Justice Undersecretary Ric Blancaflor testify before Congress

PDEA blamed State Prosecutor Resado for the mess. Resados controversial resolution dismissing the case was placed under intense scrutiny by the House of Representatives oversight committee on dangerous drugs. Several lawmakers remarked on how it overwhelmingly favoured the suspects instead of the arresting team.

This observation turned out to have basis. Resados 23-page resolution, which The Morning Post obtained, had adopted in entirety the arguments made by the suspects lawyer Verano, who turned out to be his former law professor.

For instance, Verano had insisted the suspects were not selling drugs but were about to party when arrested. Verano said Brodett fled in his car because he had mistaken the armed agents for kidnappers since they never identified themselves. Verano said Brodett was mauled and nearly killed by the agents. Resados resolution also said all those.

Resado wrote that the agents had failed to coordinate with the police before the operation. However, PDEA is not required by law to do that because being directly under the Office the President, it is a higher agency than the police force, according to a senior police official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Congresswoman Darlene Custodio also rightly observed during the congressional hearing that Resado was able to dismiss the case by discarding key evidence the PDEA chemists report confirming that what was sold to the agents were ecstasy tablets.

Resado had agreed with his former law professors conclusion that the evidence had been planted because the chemists log showed they had received the evidence even before the drug bust took place.

But the chemists told the congressional probe that they had made a mistake. The chemists tried to rectify their mistake by signing an affidavit blaming human error for writing 12:15 a.m. (past midnight) instead of 12:15 p.m. (past noon).

Resado said the explanation was filed too late and was incredible and show gross and inexcusable negligence.

In conclusion, he said, PDEAs evidence was all inadmissible for being the fruit of the poisonous tree.

Resados insistence, that he had decided the case based on merits, was undermined by an anonymous tipster who claimed that 1.6 million pesos were deposited to the accounts of Resado and his wife on Dec 2, 2008, the same date as the resolution dismissing the case.

Under oath before lawmakers, Resado confirmed that cash was indeed deposited in his account that day but it was only 800,00 pesos and not bribe money. He had personally deposited the sum which came from earnings from his informal money-lending business, he said.

But he refused to sign a waiver to allow the Anti-Money Laundering Council to probe his bank accounts after lawmakers told him he could be facing charges of graft, illicit money-lending and tax evasion.

Resado also counter-attacked by claiming that the anti-narcotics agencys chief lawyer, Alvaro Lazaro, also tried to bribe him thrice to drop the case. But unlike Major Marcelino, he never reported these to his superiors because Lazaro was his friend.

Atty. Lazaro denied the charge.

A disbarment case was filed against Resado.

Feud: Prosecutors vs. undercover agents

The Alabang boys case unmasked the simmering feud between prosecutors and undercover agents. The prosecutors claimed the latter undermined many cases by committing serious procedural lapses during operations; while the agents in turn accused state prosecutors of colluding with drug traffickers.

In the Alabang Boys case, its interesting to note that neither Major Marcelino the team leader of the undercover agents nor his superior, PDEA chief Santiago, was called to testify during the trial.

In the case of the Alabang boys, it is basically Prosecutor Resados word against that of Major Marcelino. If Beijing anti-drug authorities were asked their opinion, they would probably take the majors word.

In 2006, Beijing had tipped off Manila that Southeast Asias biggest transnational drug network then was setting up shop in the Philippine capital. The 29-year-old Mr Marcelino followed up the lead, which resulted in the arrest of 16 people including three from the mainland.

Among those arrested was the owner of the building where the shabu lab was located. The owner was a public prosecutor whom the justice department absolved. It said although he owned the building he had leased it out and had no control what it was used for.

Beijing was aghast at that, PDEAs Santiago said.

PDEA seeks OSG help over Alabang drug suspects car March 11, 2010 16:38:00

MANILA, Philippines The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) is seeking the help of the Office of the Solicitor General to keep in its custody the vehicle owned by one of three high-profile drug suspects as part of the evidence by the agency, Director General Dionisio Santiago said Thursday.

Santiago said they asked the help of the OSG after the Muntinlupa City court branch 204 denied PDEAs motion for reconsideration against returning the black Honda Accord (XPF-551) of Richard Brodett to the suspects camp.

Santiago said he has directed the agencys legal service head Alvaro Lazaro to coordinate with Alberto Agra of the OSG to help the agency maintain custody of the car by appealing and elevating the case to the Court of Appeals.

Santiago said that on July 2009, Brodetts lawyer filed a motion for the return of non-drug evidence, which sought to have the vehicle returned to his client.

The court granted the petition, to which PDEA filed an objection in August 2009, Santiago said.

Despite their objection, Santiago said that the court still ruled in favor of Brodett and, in an order dated Nov. 4, 2009, told the agency to return the vehicle to him.

On January 18, PDEAs legal service filed for a motion for reconsideration but was denied, Santiago said.

However, PDEA, in its humble submission, maintains that the vehicle is covered by Section 20, Article II of R.A. 9165 [Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Unlawful Act, Including the Properties or Proceeds Derived from the Illegal Trafficking of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals]. In fact, it has been alleged since the filing of the complaint that said

vehicle was used by the accused during the time when PDEA agents apprehended him, Santiago said.

Brodett was on board the vehicle Sept. 19, 2008 when he allegedly handed 60 tablets of ecstasy to another suspect, Jorge Jordana Joseph, in Ayala Alabang Village in Muntinlupa.

Joseph was arrested after allegedly selling the illegal drugs to an undercover PDEA agent. Brodett was later apprehended, along with another alleged accomplice, Joseph Ramirez Tecson. The three are reported to belong to prominent families.

They are detained in different jail facilities across Metro Manila.

The case became known as families of the three, who were later called the Alabang Boys, were accused of allegedly trying to bribe police in exchange for dropping the case against the suspects.

DOJ to file MR on 'Alabang Boys' case abs-cbnNEWS.com Posted at 09/01/2011 5:29 PM | Updated as of 09/02/2011 1:40 PM

MANILA, Philippines - The Department of Justice (DOJ) plans to file a motion for reconsideration (MR) on a court ruling that freed 2 members of the so-called "Alabang Boys."

This, after former Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) chief Dionisio Santiago and PDEA special enforcement service head Chief Inspector Ferdinand Marcelino convinced Justice Secretary Leila de Lima that there was no break in the chain of custody of seized drugs from Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph.

De Lima said Thursday that while doctrine of double jeopardy applies in the 2 former drug suspects' acquittal, the judge failed to appreciate the evidence and satisfactory explanation on custody issue.

Judge Juanita T. Guerrero of Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 204, in her verdict last Friday that freed Brodett and Joseph, said the prosecution failed to establish the links in the chain of custody of the drugs. - report from Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN news

Bribe raps urged in Alabang Boys case

Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 23:41:00 01/28/2009

Filed Under: PDEA-DOJ bribery issue, Graft & Corruption

MANILA, Philippines?The Kaya Natin! Good Governance group has urged judicial bodies to prosecute those involved in alleged bribery in the Alabang Boys case and challenged Congress to strengthen the laws against drugs and corruption.

The movement, led by provincial governors Grace Padaca (Isabela), Eddie Panlilio (Pampanga), Teddy Baguilat Jr. (Ifugao) and mayors Jesse Robredo (Naga City) and Sonia Lorenzo (San Isidro, Nueva Ecija), called on the justice department to pursue the charges against its own officials accused of accepting bribe money to dismiss the drug case.

Justice department prosecutors have been implicated in bribery charges in the case of the Alabang Boys? Richard Brodett, Jorge Joseph and Joseph Tecson?who were arrested in a drug bust last September and were ordered released by state prosecutors.

Besides alleged payoffs in the justice department, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency enforcement Chief Major Ferdinand Marcelino also revealed alleged offers of between P3 million and P20 million for him to release the boys. Tarra Quismundo

DOJ: Chain of custody 'intact' in Alabang boys' case By Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News Posted at 09/02/2011 8:45 AM | Updated as of 09/02/2011 1:39 PM

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) - A motion for reconsideration (MR) on a judgment of acquittal is a prohibited pleading because it puts the accused on double jeopardy.

No less than the Constitution states, under Section 21, Article III that "No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense."

This is echoed in Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.

There are, however, exceptions to this rule, though "the grounds are exceptional and narrow," as held several times by the Supreme Court (SC) and the Court of Appeals (CA).

This is what has led the Department of Justice (DOJ) to seek a reconsideration of the judgment of Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204 acquitting so-called "Alabang boys" Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph from drug charges.

The decision to file a motion for reconsideration was reached after a meeting Thursday among Justice Secretary Leila De Lima, Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz, and former Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) officials Dionisio Santiago and Ferdinand Marcelino.

"We have decided [to file] a motion for reconsideration. As you know, it is not normally done if it's an acquittal because in an acquittal, may double jeopardy issue dyan, but there are, I think, exceptions, although [these are] very rare exceptions. We will try that out," De Lima said.

The justice chief said she was convinced, after hearing the clarifications of Santiago and Marcelino, that there was no breach in the chain of custody of evidence seized from the accused contrary to the ruling of trial court presiding judge Juanita Guerrero.

"It's our consensus na nagkamali ata yung judge sa desisyon nya. There is some gross misappreciation of the procedure especially in terms of the supposed broken chain," De Lima said.

Santiago, PDEA Director at the time of the September 19, 2008 buy-bust operation that led to the arrest of Brodett and Joseph, and the subsequent filing of the case for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, explained that a PDEA evidence custodian accounted for and documented the seized drug evidence "every step of the way."

Santiago stressed evidence custodian and forensic chemist (FC) Rona Mae Aguillon was presented to the court during the bail and rebuttal hearings to establish that the chain of evidence custody is intact.

"The evidence custodian, siya lang ang may control. She's the one who has control of everything even if it was brought to the press conference. The [laboratory] custodian was there, siya naglalatag nun and at the same time, she's the one collecting back the evidence and sini-seal uli niya," Santiago said.

De Lima cited a Supreme Court (SC) ruling, which she said, gives more weight on the issue of preservation of the integrity of evidence than custody links.

"The most important thing is to prove na mayroong tampering dun sa evidence... yun na ang magiging questionable, hindi na pwedeng i-sustain ang admissibility nung evidence.

"Eto, hindi naman na-prove na nagkaroon ng tampering. Precisely, the forensic chemist proved na siya nga mismo nag-abot kina General Santiago and siya rin ang kumuha after the presscon," De Lima said.

There was nothing wrong with the holding of the presscon, provided, na na-preserve yung integrity nung drug evidence," she added.

The justice chief said the burden of proof "to prove there was tampering rests with the defense."

Aside from the OSG and ex-PDEA officials, also present during Thursday's meeting at the DOJ were Prosecutor General Claro Arellano and "Alabang boys" case handling prosecutors Agripino Baybay III and Dale Liban who were also summoned by De Lima.

Judge had earlier ruled on evidence custody chain

De Lima pointed out that in denying Brodett and Joseph's petitions for bail, Guerrero, in her order dated October 4, 2010, held: "All the links in the custody of the drug evidence were presented to prove with absolute certainty that the confiscated drugs by Juniller (poseur buyer) are the same batch of ecstasy(Methylene dioxymethamphetamine) that were turned over to (then PDEA intelligence officer SO2 Jacqueline Bade) Sogoc as evidence custodian to the crime laboratory for examination by FC Aguillon and their identification in court by Juniller and Sogoc."

"She (Judge Guerrero) made a mountain out of a molehill dun sa pagho-hold ng presscon," De Lima added.

Guerrero, in her ruling, said "the link in the custody of the drug evidence has been broken" based on the testimony of Aguillon on rebuttal that she was present during the news conference of Santiago and Marcelino where she served as evidence custodian of the presented seized drugs.

Guerrero pointed out that Aguillon, based on her own testimony, claimed that she received the drug evidence at 12:15 pm on September 20, 2008, began her examination at around 1 pm on the same day and finished her examination at 4:05 am in the morning of September 21, 2008.

However, the subject news conference, where Aguillon was supposedly present as evidence custodian, took place between 2pm - 3pm on September 20, 2008 when Aguillon was still conducting the laboratory examination on the drugs, Guerrero stressed.

"The failure of the prosecution therefore to establish all the links in the chain of custody is fatal to the case at bar... The presumption of regularity should [bow] down to the presumption of innocence of the accused," the judgment read.

However, Santiago pointed out that under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, "only a representative sample of the seized drugs should be subjected to laboratory examination" which is why he and Marcelino were able to present during a news conference on September 20, 2008 "the rest" of the seized drugs from the accused.

Appeal may be elevated to higher courts

Asked as to the DOJ's next step should Guerrero sustain her judgment, De Lima said an appeal on certiorari will be elevated to the appellate court.

Among exceptions cited by jurisprudence on motions for reconsideration of an acquittal are: when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion, and a mistrial, in which case the judgment is rendered void.

Alabang boys case of media over-fixation

Tri-media may have wittingly or unwittingly over-fixated itself with the case of so-called Alabang boys where sons of apparently wealthy families from Alabang have been arrested by agents of PDEA in an alleged buy-bust operation. The viewing universe is given sufficient enough regular dosage of news as the case develops and there is no controlling more strange versions from coming out one at least entirely theatrical when another Brodette family came into the picture. While not invited to the House inquiry, they volunteered to appear to say their piece on the controversy apparently to bolster the version of the PDEA except that it later on made motive clear they have an ax to grind against their own Brodette relatives, subject of alleged big time drug ring with international network. It is not far removed that in the next few days, the case might really construct or reconstruct itself into a whole with or without any need for a public hearing in full media coverage. And it seems that no further court proceeding might be necessary to put the case to a final close. We have heard DOJ threatened to reprimand, suspend or even disbar Atty. Verano, counsel of the drug suspects. And the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption headed by Mr. Jimenez also joined the fray by filing a case against the drug suspects lawyer with the Ombudsman. No less than Rep. Golez aired the same call that it becomes a waiting game for the Ombudsman (euphemism for its uncharacteristic over anxiety) as soon as the time pendulum swings to its end. It seems every kind of artist wants to paint his piece in the canvas were the whole drug case a huge tabularasa. What we now have is classic case of karambola, call it that. From a turf war between PDEA and DOJ with its prosecutors to a family feud between Brodette brothers and their families, it becomes an image war between Atty. Resado and Major Marcelino to one which could mutate to be an escalating word war between DOJ secretary and PDEA chief. And as all these things happen, the focal issue that ought to have explained the true circumstances of the alleged warrantless arrest in a reported buy-bust operation and alleged bribery in regard to a release order as two separate and distinct areas of concern have been but hidden from public view. House Members did in fact threaten to cite Atty. Resado of DOJ in contempt and would even go as far as will try to investigate how the matter of a DOJ official letterhead came into the hands of Atty. Verano, counsel of the Alabang boys. Fact is, Rep. Biazon no less than wants Atty. Resado to resign out of delicadeza. In short, the supposedly dismissed case for lack of sufficient evidence because

of the new bribery angle tagged to it then turned into a personality cult. There is more than meets the eyes on this overexposed case of the Alabang boys. To begin with, only one of the three suspects is living in posh Ayala Alabang. The DOJ secretary did not have to belie what Atty. Verano claimed was a meeting with Secretary Gonzales and him with the parents of the suspects except that perhaps Atty. Verano failed to rightly understand what Gonzales told him. In like manner, Major Marcelino could have also misunderstood Secretary Gonzales when he thought what was insinuated was that he was a war freak. It becomes apparent that given the same constitutional context, Gonzales and Marcelino have differing frames of mind and there are two languages spoken in the hearing one from a lawyer and another from a purely military professional worldviews that dont blend. There is already a clear perception that PDEA falls short of the legal requirements set by law in the conduct of a supposed-to-be legally permissible and legitimate buy-bust operation. It has become clear that there was no reasonable effort nor attempt from Major Marcelino to track down on the alleged briber of so-called 3M pizza by yet another work in entrapment. From Santiagos own admission, he was actually saying that all the information they are having are simply volunteered or fed to them without them as much as having to do an intricate case build up as Major Marcelino earlier claimed. NBI already challenged the major to substantiate his claim of bribery which now appears more fiction than fact.

Meantime, the mistahs of Major Marcelino have all been interviewed on TV manifesting their support for the good major of the Marines. If this is not an image build up, we dont know what is. And it has become so precisely because, the Fourth Estate is registering its own bias for Marcelino than for the Alabang boys or Atty. Resado. Mainstream media appear to also cast PDEA chief in positive light and Gonzales gets the short end of the bargain. Not few quarters believe in the bar of public opinion that PDEA through its chief and operatives like Major Marcelino are doing a good job, it appearing they are incorruptible men who do not accept bribes. But then again, such claim has no two legs to stand on. On the other hand, some quarters perceive that at the DOJ, most drug cases are simply being dismissed to the extent that there is an evolving thinking that DOJ coddles drug pushers. The manner people think or form value judgments on the issue of the Alabang boys really challenges reflection. If DOJ has to disbar the counsel for the accused, would that not leave a bad taste to the mouth? On the other hand, if the House presses to disbar Atty. Resado for possibly mistaken perception that he does, in effect, coddle the accusedsuspects, then again, what would that truly imply? Surprisingly enough, PDEA Chief Santiago already made categorical statement that DOJ Secretary Gonzales is clean only him. Are we to expect DOJ Secretary to say that of the PDEA Chief likewise? Yet, we always talk of command responsibility except that we always save the chief first and everyone else reduced to a pack of sacrificial lambs.

In the end, some individuals might do a paradigm shift. Perhaps, as election nears, they want to shift in high gear to propel their great big chances to political stardom. Marcelino may do another trick done by Trillanes and Honasan and poor Atty. Resado rather unfairly gets the whole brunt on this case that has reached this level of consciousness, however maybe anachronistic, through dreadful media hypnosis. Sotto might do a comeback along this route as chair of the Dangerous Drugs Board. Golez might do an easy nice ascent to the Senate come 2010 as the social fever against the Alabang boys keeps rising pray not. At its worst, the proposal of a death penalty has been foolishly proposed as if it were any deterrent.

Perhaps, enough of this consuming media hype on this drug case that eclipses the real order of business which is that, we should leave DOJ does its mandate. From where I stand, where the work of enforcement ends, the work of the prosecution begins. Let not one PDEA chief casts suspicion to DOJ as an institution to the point he undermines the integrity of court prosecutors in high profile drug cases. Truly, PDEA itself must follow all the legal technicalities intended to prevent abuse of authority on the part of most enforcement agencies.

DOJ chief admits appeal of 'Alabang Boys' case an 'uphill move' By Edu Punay (The Philippine Star) Updated September 03, 2011 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines - Justice Secretary Leila de Lima admitted yesterday that the decision to appeal the acquittal of two of the three Alabang boys by the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court is an uphill move.

We feel its worth filing a motion for reconsideration, worth taking that remedy although its an uphill thing because its not allowed in the general rule, she told reporters.

Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph, who were arrested by agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Ayala Alabang Village in 2008, were acquitted by Muntinlupa Judge Juanita Guerrero of drug trafficking charges for lack of evidence.

Asked about the chances of the lower court reconsidering its decision, De Lima replied: Lets just wait and see. Under the double jeopardy rule in the Constitution, an accused acquitted by the court can no longer be tried for the same crime. The only exemption so far to this rule was the case of the members of the defunct Aviation Security Command tagged in the assassination of the late Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr. on Aug. 21, 1983.

De Lima moved to challenge the rule after a closed-door meeting with the prosecution panel handling the case and former PDEA chief Dionisio Santiago and Maj. Ferdinand Marcelino, leader of the team responsible for arresting Brodett, Joseph and another accused Joseph Tecson.

We cannot just accept what we believe is an error committed by the judge just because theres this double jeopardy rule. Remember that the acquittal was not because they (Brodett and Joseph) are innocent, she stressed.

The justice chief lamented how the judge went over technical in focusing on the issue of chain of custody of evidence.

Supreme Court remands Zuo appeal to CA June 12, 2009 15:44:00 Tetch Torres INQUIRER.net

MANILA, Philippines The Supreme Court refused to act on the petition of Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuo to stop his 90-day suspension over a bribery controversy.

Instead, the court remanded Zuos petition to the Court of Appeals, saying the official should have followed the hierarchy of courts.

Let the petition for certiorari and prohibition with verified urgent prayer for issuance of ex parte temporary restraining order, temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction be referred to the Court of Appeals, it appearing that the petition violates the principle of hierarchy of courts, the high courts third division said.

The Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) suspended Zuo for 90 days starting May 29, for refusing to pursue drug charges against three high-profile suspects Jorge Joseph, Joseph Tecson, and Richard Brodett.

The three suspects allegedly supplied drugs to upscale nightclubs in Metro Manila. Agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) claimed to have refused bribes from the suspects in exchange for the dropping of the charges.

Zuo said he could not be suspended because the evidence against him was not strong.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ordered a reinvestigation of the case against Brodett, Joseph, and Tecson and charges were eventually re-filed.

Press Release January 7, 2009

ROXAS: ALABANG BOYS CASE SHOWS RP JUSTICE SCREWED-UP

Liberal President Senator Mar Roxas today said President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo must account for a screwed-up justice system that strongly favors the rich and powerful as seen in the supposed coddling of the "Alabang Boys" by Department of Justice officials.

"Palpak ang sistema ng hustisya sa ating bansa dahil imbes na kasuhan ang maysala gaya ni Jocjoc at nitong mga Alabang Boys ay mas inuuna ng mga opisyal natin ang pangungurakot (Our justice system is not working because instead of filing charges against the likes of Jocjoc and the Alabang Boys, our officials give priority to stealing from government coffers)," Roxas said.

He said the fact that Congress needs to investigate the issue showed that even law enforcers like the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) distrust the justice system. Nakakahiya at nakakainis na walang ginawa si Gloria para ayusin ang sistema sa walong taong nakaupo siya bilang Pangulo (It's embarrassing and so frustrating that Gloria didn't do anything to fix the system in the eight she was President)," he said. "Paano natin babaguhin ang sistema kung ang mga malalaking isda ay nakakalaya na lang basta-basta (How do we change this if the big fish get away with it)?

Roxas said the worsening of the illegal drugs problem in the country is clear proof that the criminal justice system is not working.

He noted that while supply scarcity had forced prices of shabu to skyrocket, demand for the illicit drug and the number of drug busts nationwide continued to rise based on records from government agencies.

Information from the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) showed that the price of shabu soared to P70,000 to P80,00 per 25 grams, or known as "bulto" in local street terms, last year following the seizure last May of 770 kilograms of the drug, estimated to be worth P4.6 billion, at the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority.

More lapses uncovered in Alabang Boys? case

By Rey E. Requejo

An agent of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency yesterday admitted that it took several hours after the sting operations on the ?Alabang Boys? before they could do a full inventory of all the evidence they recovered.

At the continuation of the probe of the Alabang Boys conducted by a fact-finding committee, Intelligence Officer I Jacqueline Sogoc, evidence custodian, said they did not immediately conduct an inventory because they had to wait for the parents of suspects Richard Brodett, Joseph Tecson and Jorge Joseph.

Sogoc said she was holding the items from the time they recovered the evidence from the suspects until they arrived at the PDEA headquarters. Sogoc said she placed the confiscated items from the first operation in a steel cabinet when they arrived at PDEA office, and the items were kept there for nine hours.

They later conducted inventories on the evidence taken from the suspects, with the parents of Brodett and Tecson looking on.

But Joseph was not present when the items allegedly taken from him were inventoried, Sogoc told the panel, chaired by former Supreme Court Associate Justice Carolina Grino-Aquino.

Sogoc said the clutch bag recovered from Brodett was not presented as evidence to the prosecutor during the inquest.

Sogoc said the different drug items were separately taken from the suspects in two drug operations. The first operation yielded an envelope containing six sachets of shabu in tablet form from Joseph. Each sachet contained 10 tablets of shabu, she said.

In a separate sting operation a few hours later, Brodett and Joseph were allegedly caught selling drugs.

2 sa tinaguriang Alabang Boys, absuwelto sa drug case na isinampa ng PDEA August 28, 2011 01:24 pm

MUNTINLUPA CITY, Philippines ACQUITTED. Ito ang naging desisyon ni Judge Juanita Guerrero ng Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 204 sa kasong paglabag sa The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 na isinampa ng Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency laban kina Richard Brodett at Jorge Joseph, ang dalawa sa tinaguriang Alabang Boys.

September 20, 2008 nahuli ng PDEA sina Jorge Joseph at Richard Brodett sa isang buy-bust operation subalit matapos ang halos tatlong taong pagdinig ay inabsuwelto ng korte ang dalawa dahil sa ilang teknikalidad.

Bagama't sinang-ayunan ng korte na balido ang isinagawang buy-bust operation ng PDEA, subalit nagkaroon umano ng break in the chain of custody ng ebidensya o kawalan ng pag-iingat sa pag-handle ng mga ebidensya. "Ang nangyari dito sabi ng SOCO, galing sa pagmarka ng ebidensiya. ibinigay na sa chemist. Sabi naman ng chemist, Sept. 20 ng alas-dose nasa kanya raw hanggang alas-kwatro ng madaling araw kinabukasan. Ang problema may lumabas na presscon sina Santiago noong hapon ng Sept. 20, mga alas-dos or alas-tres na hawak ang evidence. Ibig sabihin nailabas nang hindi alam," pahayag ng legal counsel ni Jorge Joseph na si Atty. Andresito Fornier.

"Na-mishandle, hindi masabi na yung evidence in court is 100% the same one that they were caught with. Pwede na planting na, dinagdag na," ayon naman sa legal counsel ni Richard Brodett na si Atty. Jacqueline Verano. Ikinatuwa naman ng mga akusado at ng pamilya ng mga ito ang naging desisyon ng korte.

"Basta they are free, thats more important," pahayag ng ina ni Jorge Joseph na si Mercy Joseph.

Balak namang sampahan ng kaso ng kampo ni Jorge Joseph ang PDEA.

Obstruction of Justice at indirect contempt di-umano ang balak ihain ng abugado ni Jorge Joseph laban sa naturang Drug Enforcement Agency kasama si dating PDEA Director General Dionisio Santiago at Maj. Ferdinand Marcelino na dating hepe ng Special Enforcement Service ng PDEA na siyang humuli sa Alabang Boys.

Kasama rin sa gustong kasuhan ang kasalukuyang PDEA chief Jose S. Gutierrez, Jr. dahil sa pag-aanunsyo na mako-convict ang mga suspect.

"I am willing to lecture PDEA on how to do things properly. If we have bungling officers who do not know what they are doing they should all resign," ani pa Fornier. Patuloy namang nakabinbin pa sa Quezon City RTC Branch 227 ang kaso laban sa isa pang miyembro ng Alabang Boys na si Joseph Tecson.

Matapos matanggap ang desisyon ng korte, nakalabas na ng kulungan sina Jorge Joseph at Richard Brodett. (Ito Ang Balita ni Victor Cosare, UNTV News)

Muntinlupa court acquits 2 Alabang boys of drug charge By Miko Morelos, Ruel Perez 990AM, INQUIRER.net, Philippine Daily Inquirer

MANILA, PhilippinesThe Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court acquitted two of the so-called Alabang boys who have been charged with a case for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph have been acquitted due to the polices improper gathering of evidence.

The court ruled that the buy bust operation did not follow the specific chain of custody of the evidence.

Justice was served today. There is failure to establish that they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt because they violated the chain of custody rule. It should not have been broken, lawyer Felisberto Verano said. The chain of custody refers to the requirement under the law that should be followed regarding the movement of the seized illegal drugs from seizure to presentation in court and then destruction.

PDEA arrested the two as well as another Alabang boy Joseph Tecson in 2008. Brodett was arrested in Ayala Alabang subdivision in Muntinlupa along with Jorge Joseph. Joseph Tecson was arrested in a separate operation in Araneta Center in Quezon City.

They were charged with violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

They became controversial after the DoJ dismissed the case against them due to lapses committed by PDEA in conducting the raid. PDEA accused the DoJ prosecutors of accepting bribery prompting the Office of the President to do its own review of the case and eventually file a case against the Alabang boys in court.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425

THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972

Section 1. Short title. - This Act shall be known and cited as "The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972."

Article I Definition of Terms

Sec. 2. Definitions. - As used in this Act, the term:

a. "Administer" refers to the act of introducing any dangerous drug into the body of any person, with or without his knowledge, by injection, ingestion or other means or of committing any act of indispensable assistance to a person in administering a dangerous drug to himself;

b. "Board" refers to the Dangerous Drugs Board created under Section 35 , Article VIII of this Act;chan robles virtual law library

c. "Centers" refers to any of the treatment and rehabilitation centers for drug dependents referred to in Section 34, Article VII of this Act;

d. "Cultivate or culture" means the act of knowingly planting, growing, raising or permitting the planting, growing or raising of nay plant which is the source of a prohibited drug;

e. "Dangerous Drugs" refers to either:

1. "Prohibited drug," which includes opium and its active components and derivatives, such as heroin and morphine; coca leaf and its derivatives, principally cocaine; alpha and beta eucaine, hallucinogenic drugs, such as mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and other substances producing similar effects; Indian hemp and its derivatives; all preparations made from any of the foregoing and other drugs, whether natural or synthetic, with the physiological effects of a narcotic drug; or

2. "Regulated drug" which includes self-inducing sedatives, such as secobarbital, phenobarbital, pentobarbital, barbital, and amobarbital and any other drug which contains a salt or a derivative, a salt of barbituric acid; any salt, isomer, or salt of an isomer, of amphetamine, such as benedrine or dexedrine, or any drug which produces a physiological action similar to amphetamine, and hypnotic drugs, such as methaqualone or any other compound producing similar physiological effects;

f. "Deliver" refers to a persons act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with consideration;

g. "Drug dependence" means a state of psychic or physical dependence, or both, on a dangerous drug, arising in a person following administration or use of that drug on a periodic or continuous basis;chan robles virtual law library

h. "Employee" of a prohibited drug, den, dive or resort included the caretaker, helper, watchman, lookout and other persons employed by the operator of a prohibited drug den, dive or resort where any prohibited drug is administered, delivered, distributed, sold or used, with or without compensation, in connection with the operation thereof;

i. "Indian hemp," otherwise known as "marijuana," embraces every king and class of the plant cannabis sativum L. from which the resin has not been extracted, including cannabis americana, basbish, bhang, guaza, churus and ganjab, and embraces every kind, class and character of Indian hemp, whether dried or fresh, flowering or fruiting tops of the pistillate plant, and all its geographic varieties, whether as a reefer, resin, extract, tincture or in any form whatsoever;

j. "Manufacturer" means the production, presentation, compounding, or processing of a dangerous drug either directly or indirectly or by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and shall include any packaging or repackaging of such substance or labelling of its container; except that such term does not

include the preparation, compounding, packaging or labelling of a drug or other substance by a duly authorized practitioner as an incident to his administration of dispensing of such drug or substance in the course of his professional practice;chan robles virtual law library

k. "Narcotic drug" refers to any drug which produces insensibility, stupor, melancholy or dullness of mind with delusions and which may be habitat-forming, and shall include opium, opium derivatives and synthetic opiates;

l. "Opium" refers to the coagulated juice of the opium poppy (papaver somniferum) and embraces every kind and class of opium, whether crude or prepared; the ashes or refuse of the same; narcotic preparations thereof or therefrom; morphine or any alkaloid of opium; preparations in which opium, morphine or any alkoloid of opium enters as an ingredient; opium straw; and leaves or wrappings of opium leaves, whether prepared for use of not;

m. "Pusher" refers to any person who sells, administers, delivers, or gives away to another, on any terms whatsoever, or distributes, dispatches in transit or transports any dangerous drug or who acts as a broker in any of such transactions, in violation of this Act;

n. "School" included any university, colleges, or institution of learning, regardless of the courses it offers;

o. "Sell" means the act of giving a dangerous drug, whether for money or any other material considerations;

p. "Use" refers to the act of injecting, intravenously or intramuscularly, or of consuming, either by chewing, smoking, sniffing, eating, swallowing, drinking, or otherwise introducing into the physiological system of the body, any of the dangerous drugs.chan robles virtual law library

Article II Prohibited Drugs

Sec. 3. Importation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from fourteen years and one day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from fourteen thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring into the Philippines any

prohibited drug.

Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve years and one day to twenty years and a fine ranging from twelve thousand to twenty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drugs, or shall act as a borker in any of such transactions. In case of a practitioner, the additional penalty of the revocation of his license to practice his profession shall be imposed. If the victim of the offense is a minor, the maximum of the penalty shall be imposed.

Should a prohibited drub involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon the pusher. chan robles virtual law library

Sec. 5. Maintenance of a Den, Dive, or Resort for Prohibited Drugs Users - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve years and one day to twenty years and a fine ranging twelve thousand to twenty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive, or resort where any prohibited drug is used in any form.

The maximum of the penalty shall be imposed in every case where a prohibited drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such place.

Should a prohibited drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the penalty of life imprisonment to death penalty ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed on the maintainer.

Sec. 6. Employees and Visitors of Prohibited Drugs Den. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from two years and one day to six years and a fine ranging from two thousand to six thousand pesos shall be imposed upon:

a. Any employee of a prohibited drug den, dive or resort; and

b. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next preceding paragraph, shall knowingly visit any prohibited drug den, dive or resort.

Sec. 7. Manufacturer of Prohibited Drugs - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall engage in the manufacturer of any prohibited drugs.

Sec. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug, except Indian hemp as to which the next following paragraph shall apply.chan robles virtual law library

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to six years and a fine ranging from six hundred to six thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person, who unless authorized by law, shall possess or use Indian hemp.

Sec. 9. Cultivation of Plants Which are Sources of Prohibited Drugs.- The penalty of imprisonment ranging from fourteen years and one day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from fourteen thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall cultivate or culture Indian hemp, opium poppy (papaver somniferum) and other plants from which any prohibited drugs may be manufactured.

The land on which any of said plants is cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and escheated to the State, unless the owner thereof can prove that he did not know of such cultivation or culture despite the exercise of due diligence on his part.

Sec. 10. Records of Prescriptions, Sales, Purchases, Acquisitions and/or deliveries of Prohibited Drugs.The penalty of imprisonment ranging from one year and one day to six years and a fine ranging from one thousand to six thousand pesos, shall be imposed upon any pharmacist, physician, dentist, veterinarian, manufacturer, wholesaler, importer, distributor, dealer or retailer who violates or fails to comply with the provision of Section 25 of this Act, if the violation or failure involves a prohibited drugs.

Sec. 11. Unlawful Prescription of Prohibited Drugs.- The penalty of imprisonment ranging from eight years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from eight thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorised by law, shall make or issue a prescription or any other writing purporting to be a prescription for any prohibited drugs.

Sec. 12. Unnecessary Prescription of Prohibited Drugs.- The penalty of imprisonment ranging from four years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from four thousand to twelve thousand pesos and the additional penalty of the revocation of license to practice shall be imposed upon any physician or dentist who shall prescribe any prohibited drugs for any person whose physical or physiological condition does not require the use thereof.

Sec. 13. Possession of Opium Pipe and other Paraphernalia for Prohibited Drugs.- The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to four years and a fine ranging from six hundred to four thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorised by law, shall possess or have under his control any opium pipe, equipment, instrument , apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting or otherwise using opium or any other prohibited drugs.chan robles virtual law library

The possession of such opium pipe, equipment, instrument, apparatus or other paraphernalia, fit or intended for any of the purposes enumerated in this Section shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself, injected, or used a prohibited drug.

Article III Regulated Drugs

Sec. 14. Importation of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring any regulated drug into the Philippines.

Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sale, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulate drug. In case of a practitioner, the maximum of the penalty herein prescribe and additional penalty of the revocation of his license to practice his profession shall be imposed.chan robles virtual law library

Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six month and one day to four years and a fine ranging from six hundred to four thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription.

Sec. 17. Records of Prescription, Sales, Purchase Acquisition and/or Deliveries or Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of the imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to four years and a fine ranging from six hundred to four thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any pharmacists, physician, dentist, veterinarian, manufacturer, wholesaler, importer, distributor, dealer or retailer who violated or fails o comply with the provision of Section 25 of this Act, if the violation of failure involves a regulated drug.

Sec. 18. Unlawful Prescription of Regulated Drugs. The penalty of imprisonment raging from four years and one day, to eight years and a fine ranging from four thousand to eight thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall make or issue a prescription of any regulated drug.

Sec. 19. Unnecessary Prescription of Regulated Drugs.- The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to four years and a fine ranging from six hundred to four thousand pesos and the additional penalty of the revocation of his license to practice shall be imposed upon any physician or dentist who shall prescribe any regulated drugs for any person whose physical or physiological condition does not require the use thereof.

ARTICLE IV Provisions of Common Application to Offenses Penalized under Articles II and III

Sec. 20. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime.- Every penalty imposed for the unlawful importation, sale, administration, delivery , transportation or manufacture of dangerous drugs, the cultivation of plants which are sources of prohibited drugs and the possession of any opium pipe and other paraphernalia for prohibited drugs shall carry with it the confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of the Government, of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tolls with which it was committed, unless they are the property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those which are not of lawful commerce shall be ordered destroyed. Dangerous drugs and plant-sources of prohibited drugs so confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government shall be turned over to the Board for safekeeping and proper disposal.

Sec. 21. Attempt and Conspiracy - The same penalty prescribed by this Act for the commission of the offense shall be imposed in case of any attempt or conspiracy to commit the same in the following cases:

(a) importation of dangerous drugs; (b) sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs;chan robles virtual law library (c) maintenance of a den, dive or resort for prohibited drug users; manufacturer of dangerous drugs; and (d) cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of prohibited drugs.

Sec. 22. Additional Penalty if Offender is an Alien- In addition to the penalties therein prescribed, any alien who violated any of the provisions of Articles II and III of this Act shall be deported without further proceedings immediately after service of sentence.

Sec. 23. Criminal Liability of Officers of Partnerships, Corporations, Associations and other Judicial Persons; Liability in Cases Where Vehicles, Vessels or Aircraft or Other Instruments are used to Commit a Crime. - In case any violation of this Act is committed by a partnership, corporation, association or any judicial person, the partner, president, director or manager who consents to or knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held criminally liable as a co-principal.

The penalty provided for the offense under this Act shall be imposed upon the partner, president, director manager, officer or stockholder who knowingly authorizes, tolerates or consents to the use of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft as an instrument in the importation, sale, delivery, distribution or transportation of dangerous drugs, or to the use of their equipment, machines or other instruments in the manufacture of any dangerous drugs, if such vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or other instrument is owned by or under the control or supervision of the partnership, corporation, association or juridical entity to which they are affiliated.chan robles virtual law library

Sec. 25. Records, Required of Pharmacist, Physicians, Veterinarian or Dentist Dispensing or Prescribing Dangerous Drugs, and of Importers, Manufacturers, Wholesalers, Distributors, Dealers and Retailers of Dangerous Drugs.- (a) Every pharmacist dealing in dangerous drugs shall maintain and keep an original records of sales, purchases, acquisition and deliveries of dangerous drugs, indicating therein the license number and address of the pharmacist; the name, address and license of manufacturer, importer or wholesaler from whom dangerous drugs have been purchased; the quantity and name of dangerous drugs so purchased or acquired; the date of acquisition or purchase; the name, address and Class A residence certificate number of the buyer; the serial number of the prescription and the name of the doctor, dentist, veterinarian or practitioner issuing the same; the quantity and the name of the dangerous drugs so sold or delivered; and the date of sale or delivery.

A certified true copy of such record covering a period of three calendar months, duly signed by the pharmacist or the owner of the drug store or pharmacy, shall be forwarded to the city or municipal health officer within fifteen days following the last day of every quarter of each year.chan robles virtual law library

The city or municipal health officer shall forward such records to the board within (15) days from receipt thereof.

(b) A physician, dentist, veterinarian or practitioner authorized to prescribe any dangerous drug shall issue the prescription therefor in one original and two duplicate copies. The original , after the prescription has been filled, shall be retained by the pharmacist for a period of one year from the date of sale or delivery of such drug . One copy shall be retained by the buyer or by the person to whom the drug is consumed , while the second copy shall be retained by the person issuing the prescription.

For purpose of this Act, all prescription issued by physician, dentists, veterinarians or practitioners shall be made out on forms exclusively issued by and obtained from the Board. Such forms shall be made of a special kind of paper and shall be distributed in such quantities and contain such information and other data as the Board nay, by rules and regulations, require. Such forms shall not be issued by the Board or any of its employees except to license physicians, dentist, veterinarians and practitioner in such quantities as the Board may authorized. In such emergency cases, however, as the board may specify in the public interest, prescriptions need not be accomplished on such forms. The prescribing physician, dentist, veterinarian or practitioner shall, within three days after issuing such prescription, inform the Board of the same in writing. No prescription once issued may be refilled.chan robles virtual law library

(c) All manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, importers, dealers and retailers of dangerous drugs shall keep a record of all sales, purchases, acquisition and deliveries of dangerous drugs, the names, addresses and licenses of the persons from whom the dangerous drugs were purchased or acquired or to whom such drugs were sold or delivered, the name and the quantity of the drugs and the date of the transaction.

Sec. 26. Penalty for a Person Importing Dangerous Drugs by making Use of Diplomatic Passport.- The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized under this Act, shall import or bring into the Philippines any dangerous drug by making use of a diplomatic passport, diplomatic facilities or any other means involving his official status intended to facilitate the unlawful entry of dangerous drugs. In addition, the diplomatic passport shall be confiscated and canceled.chan robles virtual law library

Sec. 27. Criminal liability of Possessor or User of Dangerous Drugs During Social Gatherings.- The maximum of the penalties provided for on Section 8, Article II and Section 16, Article III of this Act shall be imposed upon any person found possessing or using any dangerous drug during a party or at a social gathering or in a group of at least five persons possessing or using such drugs.

ARTICLE V Educational Measures

Sec. 28 . Heads, Supervisors and Teachers of Schools .- For the purpose of enforcing the provision of Articles II and III of this Act, all school heads, supervisors and teachers shall be deemed to be persons in authority and as such, are hereby vested with the power to apprehend, arrest or cause the apprehension or arrest of any person who shall violate any of the said provisions. They shall be considered as person in authority if they are in the school or within its immediate vicinity, or beyond such immediate vicinity if they are in attendance at any school or class function in their official capacity as school heads, supervisors or teachers.

Sec. 29. Dangerous Drugs as Part of school Curricula.- Instruction on the adverse effects of dangerous drugs, including their legal, social and economic implication, shall be integrated in the existing curricula of all public and private schools, whether general, technical, vocational or agro-industrial.chan robles virtual law library

The Secretary of Education shall promulgate such rules and regulation as may be necessary to carry out the provisions hereof and with the assistance of the Board, shall cause the publication and distribution of materials on dangerous drugs to students and the general public.

ARTICLE VI Rehabilitative Confinement and Suspension of Sentence

Sec. 30. Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to Confinement, Treatment, and Rehabilitation by the Dependent himself or through his Parent, Guardian or Relative.- If a drug dependent voluntarily submits himself for confinement, treatment and rehabilitation in a center and complies with such conditions therefor as the Board may, by rules and regulations, prescribe, he shall not be criminally liable for any violation of Section 8, Article II and this Section 16, Article III of this Act.

The above exemption shall extended to a minor who may be committed for a treatment and rehabilitation in government center upon sworn petition of his parent, guardian or relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in that order . Such petition may be filed with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the minor resides and shall set forth therein his name and address and the facts relating to his dependency. The court shall set the petition for hearing and give the drug dependent concerned an opportunity to be heard. If, after such hearing, the facts so warrant in its judgment, the court shall order the drug dependent to be examined by two physicians accredited by the board. If both physicians conclude, after examination, that the minor is not drug dependent, the court shall enter an order discharging him. If either physician finds him to be a dependent, the court shall conduct a hearing and consider all relevant evidence which may be offered. If the court makes a finding of drug dependency, it shall issue an order for his commitment to a center designated by the court for treatment and rehabilitation under the supervision of the Board.

When, in the opinion of the person committed or of his parent, guardian or relative, or of the Board, such person is rehabilitated, any of the above parties may file a sworn petition for his release with the Court of First Instance which ordered the commitment. If, after due hearing, the court finds the petition to be wellfounded, it shall forthwith order the release of the person so committed.chan robles virtual law library

Should the drug dependent, having voluntarily submitted himself to confinement, treatment and rehabilitation in, or having been committed to a center upon petition of the proper party, escape therefrom, he may resubmit himself for confinement within one week from the date of his escape, or his parent,

guardian or relative may, within the same period, surrender him for recommitment. If, however, the drug dependent does not resubmit himself for confinement or he is not surrendered for recommitment, as the case may be, the Board may file a sworn petition for his recommitment. Upon proof of previous commitment or of his voluntary submission to confinement, treatment and rehabilitation, the court shall issue an order for recommitment, he should escape again, he shall no longer be exempt from criminal liability for use or possession of any dangerous drug.

The judicial and any medical records pertaining to any drug dependent s confinement or commitment under this Section shall be confidential and shall not be used against him for any purpose except to determine how many times he shall have voluntarily submitted himself to confinement, treatment and rehabilitation or been committed or recommitted to a center.

Sec. 31. Compulsory Submission of a Drug Dependent to treatment and Rehabilitation After Arrest .- If a person charged with an offense is found by the fiscal or by the court, at any stage of the proceeding, to be a drug dependent, the fiscal or the court, as the case maybe, shall suspend all further proceedings and transmits copies of the records of the case to the Board.

In the event the Board determines, after the examination, that public interest that such drug dependent be committed to a government center for treatment and rehabilitation, it shall file a petition for his commitment with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he resides. The court shall take judicial notice of the prior proceedings in the case and shall proceed to hear the petition. If the court finds him to be drug dependent, it shall order his commitment to a government center for treatment and rehabilitation. The head of the said center shall submit to the court every four months, or as often as the court may require, a written report on the progress of the treatment. If the dependent is rehabilitated as certified by the center and the Board, he shall be returned to the court which committed him, for his discharge therefrom.

Thereafter, his prosecution for any offense punishable by law shall be constituted or shall continue, as the case may be. In case of conviction, the full period of his prior detention and his confinement for treatment and rehabilitation shall be deducted from the period of the penalty imposed on him and he shall serve sentence only for the remainder thereof.

Sec. 32. Suspension of Sentence for First Offense of a Minor.- If an accused less than twenty one years old of age who is found guilty of violating Section 8, Article II and Section 16, Article III of this Act has not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this Act or of the Revised Penal Code or placed on probation as herein provided, the court may defer sentence and place him on probation under the supervision of the Board or its agents and under such condition as the court may impose from a period ranging from six months to one year. If the accused violates any of the condition of his probation, the court shall pronounce judgement of conviction and he shall serve sentence as in any other criminal case. If, however, he does not violate any condition of his probation, then upon the expiration of the designated period, the court shall discharge him and dismiss the proceedings.chan robles virtual law library

If the court finds that such accused is drug dependent, it shall commit him to a center for treatment and rehabilitation under the supervision of the Board. Upon certification of his rehabilitation under the supervision of the board , the court shall enter an order discharging him.

A confidential record of the proceedings shall be kept by the Department of Justice and shall not be use for any other purpose except as a record to be used in determining whether or not a person accused under the provision of this Act is a first offender.

Upon dismissal of the proceedings against him, the court shall enter an order to expunge all official records (other than the confidential record to be retained by the Department of Justice) relating to his case. Such an order, which shall be kept confidential, shall restore the accuse to his status prior to the case. He shall not be held thereafter, under any provisions of law, to be guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made of him for any purpose.

In the case of minors under sixteen years of age at the time of the commission of any offense penalized under this Act, the provisions of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code shall apply, without prejudice to the application of the provisions of this Section.

Sec. 33. Violation of Confidential Nature of Records.- The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to six years and a fine ranging from six hundred to six thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, having official custody of, or access to the confidential records referred to in Sections 30 and 32 of this Act, or anyone who, having gained possession of such records, whether lawfully or not, reveals their contents to any person other than those charged with the prosecution of offense under this Act or with its implementation.chan robles virtual law library

ARTICLE VII Treatment and Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents

Sec. 34. Treatment and Rehabilitation Center for Drug Dependents.- The existing Treatment and Rehabilitation Center for Drug Dependents at Tagaytay City shall continue to be operated and maintained by the National Bureau of Investigation under the supervision and funding of the Board. In addition thereto, the Board shall encourage and assist in the establishment, operation and maintenance of private centers. The Tagaytay center shall constitute the nucleus of such centers as maybe created, authorized and/or accredited under this Act.

ARTICLE VIII Dangerous Drug Board

Sec. 35. Creation and Composition of the Board.- There is hereby created a dangerous Drugs Board which shall be composed of nine members. Three members who shall possess adequate training and experience in the field of dangerous drugs or in law, medicine, criminology, psychology or social work, shall be appointed by the president of the Philippines with the consent of the Commission of Appointments. The President shall designate a chairman among three appointive members who shall serve for six years. Of two other members, one shall serve for four years and the other for two years. Thereafter, the persons appointed to succeed such members shall hold office for a term of six years and until their successor shall have been duly appointed and qualified. The remaining six shall be ex-officio members, as follows:

(a) the Secretary of Justice or his representative (b) the Secretary of National Defense or his representative; (c) the Secretary of Health or his representative; (d) the Secretary of Education or his representative; (e) the Secretary of the Department of Finance and his representative; and (f) the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development or his representative.chan robles virtual law library

The Director of the National Bureau of Investigation shall be the permanent consultant of the Board.

The Chairman shall receive a compensation of twenty thousand pesos per annum. The two other members who are appointed by the President of the Philippines shall each receive a compensation of eighteen thousand pesos per annum.

The Board shall meet at the call of the chairman or of the two other members appointed by the President of the Philippines. The presence of five members shall constitute a quorum.

The Board may constitute an executive committee, to be composed of the chairman and two other members, which shall have the duty of carrying into effect the policies and decisions of the Board and shall meet as often as necessary, at the discretion of the chairman.

When public interest so requires, the executive committee may act for in behalf of the Board, and its decision shall be valid unless revoked by the Board on its next regular or special meeting.chan robles virtual law library

The Chief of Narcotics Section of the National Bureau of Investigation shall be the ex-officio executive director of the Board. He shall be the administrative officer of the Board and shall perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by it.

Sec. 36. Power and Duties of the Board.- The Board shall:

(a) Promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carried out the purpose of this Act, including the manner of safe keeping, disposition, burning or condemnation of dangerous drugs under its charge and custody, and prescribe administrative remedies or sanctions for the violation of such rules and regulation;

(b) Take charge and custody of all dangerous drugs seized, confiscated by or surrendered to any national, provincial or local law enforcement agency, if no longer needed for purpose of evidence in court;

(c) Develop educational programs based on factual information and disseminate the same to the general public , for which purpose the Board shall endeavor to make the general public aware of the hazards of dangerous drugs by providing, among others, literature, films, displays or advertisements, and by coordinating by all institutions of learning as well as with all national and local law enforcement agencies in planning and conducting its educational campaign programs ;

(d) Provide law enforcement officers, school authorities and personnel of centers with special training with dangerous drug control;

(e) Conduct scientific, clinical, social, psychological, physical and biological researches on dangerous drugs;

(f) Draw up, in consultation and in coordination with the various agencies involved in drug control, treatment and rehabilitation, both public and private, a national treatment and rehabilitation program for drug dependents ; and call upon any department, office, bureau, institution or agency of the Government to render such assistance as it may require, or coordinate wit it or with other such entities, to carry out such program as well such other activities as it may under take pursuant to the provisions of this Act;chan robles virtual law library

(g) Receive all donations for the purpose of carrying out the objects of this Acts;

(h) Subject to the civil service law and the rules and regulations issued thereunder, appoint such technical, administrative and other personnel as maybe necessary for the effective implementation of this Act;

(i) Receive, gather, collate and evaluate all information on the importation, exportation, production, manufacture, sales, stocks, seizures of and the estimated need for dangerous drugs, for which purpose the Board may require from any official instrumentality or agency of the Government or any private persons or enterprises dealing in, or engaged in activities having to do with dangerous drugs such data or information as it may need to implement this Act;

(j) Relay information regarding any violation of this Act to law enforcement agencies to affect the apprehension of the offenders and the confiscation of dangerous drug and transmit evidence to the proper court;

(k) Conduct eradication programs to destroy wild or illicit growth of plants from which dangerous drugs may be extracted;

(l) Authorize, pursuant to the provisions of this Act, the importation, distribution, prescription, dispensing and sale of, and other lawful acts in connection with, dangerous drugs of such kind and quality as it may deem necessary according to the medical and research needs of the country, with authorization shall be required by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as a basis for the issuance of licenses and permits for such purposes in accordance with Republic Act No. 953;

(m) Encourage, assist and accredit private centers, promulgating rules and regulations setting minimum standards for their accreditation to assure their competence, integrity and stability;

(n) Prescribe and promulgate rules and regulations governing the establishment of such centers as it may deem necessary, after conducting a feasibility study thereof;

(o) Provide appropriate rewards to informers who are instrumental in the discovery and seizure of dangerous drugs and in the apprehension of violators of this Act;

(p) Gather and prepare detailed statistics on the importation, exportation, manufacture, stocks, seizures of and estimated need for dangerous drugs and such other statistical data on said drugs as may be periodically required by the United Nations Narcotics Drug Commission, the World Health Organization and other International organizations in consonance with international commitments.

Article IX Appropriation, Management of Funds and Annual Report

Sec. 37. Appropriation. in order to carry out the objectives of this Act, the sum of twelve million pesos is hereby appropriated out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated from the effectivity of this Act until June 30, 1973. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be included in subsequent annual General Appropriations Acts.

All income derived from fines authorized in this Act and all unclaimed and forfeited sweepstakes prizes in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office are hereby constituted as special funds for the implementation of this act: Provided, That at least 50% of all funds from the latter source shall be reserved for assistance to accredited and deserving private rehabilitation centers: Provided, further, That all such fines and unclaimed and forfeited prizes shall be returned over to the Board by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office within 30 days after they are collected or declared forfeited, as the case may be.

Sec. 38. Management of Funds Under this Act; Annual Report by the Board. The Board shall manage the funds as it may deem proper for the attainment of the objectives of this Act. The chairperson of the Board shall submit to the President of the Philippines and to presiding officers of both houses of Congress, within fifteen days from the opening of the regular session, on annual report on the dangerous drugs situation in the country which shall include a detailed account of the programs and projects, undertaken, statistics on crimes related to dangerous drugs, expenses incurred pursuant to the provisions of this Act, recommended remedial legislation, if needed, and such other relevant facts as it may deem proper to cite.

Article X Jurisdiction Over Dangerous Drug Cases

Sec. 39. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Criminal Court. - The Circuit Criminal Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases involving offenses punishable under this Act.

The preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall the date of termination of the preliminary

investigation. Where a prima facie case is established, the corresponding information shall be filed in court within rendered within the period of fifteen (15) hours. Decision on said cases shall be rendered within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of submission of the case. chan robles virtual law library

Sec. 40. Reclassification, Addition or Removal of Any Drug from the List of Dangerous Drugs. The Board shall five notice to the general public of the reclassification, addition to or removal from the list of any drug by publishing such notice in any newspaper of general circulation once a week for two consecutive weeks.

The effect of such reclassification, addition or removal shall be as follows:

(1) In case a prohibited drug is reclassified as regulated, the penalties for violations of this Act involving the latter shall, in case of conviction, be imposed in all pending criminal prosecutions;

(2) In case a regulated drug is reclassified as prohibited, the penalties for violations of this Act involving regulated drugs shall, in case of conviction, be imposed in all pending criminal prosecutions;

(3) In case of the addition of a drug from the list of dangerous drugs, all pending criminal prosecutions involving such drug under this Act shall forthwith be dismissed.chan robles virtual law library

Article XI Final Provision

Sec. 41. Separability Clause. If for any reason any section or provision of this Act, or any portion thereof, or the application of such section, provision or portion thereof to any person, group or circumstance is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act shall not be affected by such declaration.

Sec. 42. Repealing Clause - Articles one hundred ninety, one hundred ninety-one, one hundred ninety-two, one hundred ninety-three and one hundred ninety-four of Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and fifteen, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, are hereby repealed; and the provisions of such other laws, executive or administrative orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act; are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.chan robles virtual law library

Sec. 43. Effectivity - This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: March 30, 1972.