Latest Updates and

Jurisprudence on RA 9165 as
amended
Latest Updates and Jurisprudence of RA 9165 :

 Section 21 (Chain of Custody Rule); and

 Section 23 (Plea Bargaining);

 LATEST JURISPRUDENCE
ON SEC 21, RA 9165

(CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE)

FOLLOWING THE SC
PRONOUNCEMENT ON PEOPLE VS
ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, G.R. NO.
231989, SEPT 4, 2018
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 210-
2018
RE; MANDATORY POLICY THAT SHALL GOVERN THE
PRACTICE IN MAINTAINING THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY
VALUE OF SEIZED/CONFISCATED ILLEGAL DRUGS
AND OTHER DRUG-RELATED ITEMS.
THE FOLLOWING SHOULD HENCEFORTH BE
ENFORCED AS A MANDATORY POLICY;

1. IN THE SWORN STATEMENT/AFFIDAVIT, THE

APPREHENDING/SEIZING OFFICER MUST STATE
THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF SECTION 21 (1) OF RA 9165 AS AMENDED;

2. IN CASE OF NON-OBSERVANCE, THE

APPREHENDING OFFICER MUST STATE THE
JUSTIFICATION OR EXPLANATION THEREFOR AS
WELL AS THE STEPS THEY HAVE TAKEN IN ORDER
TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY
VALUE OF THE SEIZED/CONFISCATED ITEMS;
3. IF THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION/S OR EXPLANATION
EXPRESSLY DECLARED IN THE SWORN STATEMENT OR
AFFIDAVIT, THE INVESTIGATING FISCAL MUST NOT
IMMEDIATELY FILE THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT. INSTEAD,
HE OR SHE MUST REFER THE CASE FOR FURTHER
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE
(NON) EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE ;

4. IF THE INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR FILED THE CASE

DESPITE SUCH ABSENCE, THE COURT MAY EXERCISE ITS
DISCRETION TO EITHER REFUSE TO ISSUE A COMMITMENT
ORDER (OR WOA) OR DISMISS THE CASE OUTRIGHT FOR
LACK PROBABLE CAUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5,
RULE 112 OF RULES OF COURT
INCIDENTALLY, IN THE SAME DECISION,
THE SC ALSO DECLARED THAT;

IT MUST BE ALLEGED AND

PROVED THAT THE PRESENCE OF THE
THREE WITNESSES TO THE PHYSICAL
INVENTORY AND PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
ILLEGAL DRUG SEIZED WAS NOT
OBTAINED DUE TO REASON/S SUCH AS;
1. THEIR ATTENDANCE WAS
IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE PLACE OF
ARREST WAS A REMOTE AREA;

2. THEIR SAFETY DURING THE

INVETORY AND PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
SEIZED DRUGS WAS THREATENED BY
AN IMMEDIATE RETALIATORY ACTION
OF THE ACCUSED OR ANY PERSON/S
ACTING FOR AND IN HIS/HER BEHALF;
3. THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THEMSELVES WERE
INVOLVED IN THE PUNISHABLE ACTS SOUGHT TO BE
APPREHENDED;

4. EARNEST EFFORTS TO SECURE THE PRESENCE OF DOJ

OR MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE AND ELECTED LOCAL
OFFICIALS WITHIN THE PERIOD REQUIRED UNDER ART
125 OF THE RPC PROVE FUTILE THROUGH NO FAULT OF
THE ARRESTING OFFICERS, WHO FACE THE THREAT OF
BEING CHARGED WITH ARBITRARY DETENTION; AND

5. TIME CONSTRAINTS AND URGENCY OF THE ANTI-DRUG

OPERATIONS, WHICH OFTEN RELY ON TIPS OF
CONFIDENTIAL ASSETS, PREVENTED THE LAW
ENFORCERS FROM OBTAINING THE PRESENCE OF THE
REQUIRED WITNESSES EVEN BEFORE THE OFFENDERS
COULD ESCAPE.
 LATEST UPDATES AND
JURISPRUDENCE ON
SECTION 23 OF RA 9165
 SALVADOR ESTIPONA VS JUDGE LOBRIGO
GR NO. 226679, AUG. 15, 2017

Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining
Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and instead, to enter a plea of
guilty for violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession). He argued
that Section 23(disallowance of plea bargaining) of R.A. No. 9165 violates:
(1) the intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof;
(2) the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5 (5), Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution; and
(3) the principle of separation of powers among the three equal branches of the
government.

Prosecution moved for the denial for being contrary to Section 23 which is
said to be justified by the Congress' prerogative to choose which offense it would
allow plea bargaining. Respondent Judge Lobrigo issued an Order denying Estipona's
motion. Estipona led a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. hence, he filed
petition before the SC.
ISSUE:
WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT
ENCROACHED UPON THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO PROMULGATE
RULES OF PROCEDURE. –YES

The Supreme Court held that the power to promulgate rules of

pleading, practice and procedure is now their exclusive domain
and no longer shared with the Executive and Legislative
departments (Sec 5 (5), Art VIII).
The Court further held that the separation of powers among the
three co-equal branches of our government has erected an
impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of
pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of this
Court. The other branches trespass upon this prerogative if they
enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal, alter or modify
any of the procedural rules promulgated by the Court.
 A.M. NO. 18-03-16-SC
(Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases)
 A.M. NO. 18-03-16-SC
(Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases)
 A.M. NO. 18-03-16-SC
(Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases)
 A.M. NO. 18-03-16-SC
(Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases)
 A.M. NO. 18-03-16-SC
(Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases)
 A.M. NO. 18-03-16-SC
(Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases)
 A.M. NO. 18-03-16-SC
(Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases)
 A.M. NO. 18-03-16-SC
(Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases)
END OF BRIEFING!!!

POR LA PATRIA

21