Ra 9165 As Amended by Ra 10640 Pro 3

STRENGTHENING RA 9165
ATTY. ROMINAGRACE A. YADAO

Regional Lawyer
PDEA RO III
RA 10640 - an act to further Strengthen the
Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government,
amending for the purpose section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002″
Signed into law by President Benigno Simeon
Aquino on July 15, 2014
Amendments:
1. par. 1– number of witnesses
Accused and Public Elected Officials
Media or DOJ
2. par. 3 - timeframe of the issuance of the
certification of forensic result
Proverbs 19:1
Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool.
Place—IRR WHERE: ( marking, inventory )
Saving Clause—DDB BR. No. 1 series Search Warrant
of 2002 Place where SW was implemented
SAVING CLAUSE; Warrantless Seizures
That non-compliance of these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the
Nearest police station/ nearest office of
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized the apprehending team
items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render
void and invalid such seizures and custody over
said items. Exodus 20:16
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
WHAT TO DO DURING MARKING is the starting
INVENTORY point in the custodial link
Marking, which is the affixing on the
hence it is vital that the
dangerous drugs or related items by the seized contraband be
apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer immediately marked
of his initials or signature or other because succeeding
identifying signs, should be made in the handlers will use the
presence of the apprehended violator
immediately upon arrest.
markings as reference.
( Pp vs. Alejandro ,
GR No. 176350, Aug 10,
2011)
Thus, in PP v. Gum-Oyen, testimony that included the marking of
the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the
accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on
chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or
office of the apprehending team. G.R. No. 182231, April 16,
2009
In case where the execution of Search Warrant is
preceded by warrantless seizures, the MARKING,
INVENTORY AND PHOTOGRAPH of the items
recovered from the search warrant shall be
performed separately from the MARKING,
INVENTORY AND PHOTOGRAPH from
warrantless seizures.
In case of seizure of plant sources at the
plantation site, where it is not physically possible
to count or weigh the seizure , the seizing officer
shall estimate the gross weight or net weight . If it
is safe and practicable marking, inventory and
photograph shall be made at the plantation site.
( not more than 510 grams of Mj leaves)
Partial
Laboratory
examination
stating
Certification of Partial Laboratory therein the
If voluminous
forensic results Examination Report quantities of
DDs still to
be examined
Final Certification
Upon completion of
examination
Art. 125. RPC
36 hours
Within 72 hours
from filing
Ocular Inspection by the court
Hebrews 13:5
Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”
PP VS UMIPANG, G.R. No. 190321
APRIL 2012
SC RULING:
Minor deviations (incomplete witnesses,) from the

procedures under R.A. 9165 would not automatically
exonerate an accused from the crimes of which he or
she was convicted. This is especially true when the
lapses in procedure were “recognized and explained
in terms of justifiable grounds.
However, when there is gross disregard ( NO WITNESSES,
MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES OF MARKINGS) of the
procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A.
9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of
the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence.
This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking
the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard
of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an
irregularity in the performance of official.
RESULT: ACQUITTAL
In this connection, the Court states that the unexplained non-

compliance with the procedures for preserving the chain
of custody of the dangerous drugs has frequently caused
the Court to absolve those found guilty by the lower courts.
( PP v Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013)
IS THERE A NEED TO PRESENT IN COURT ALL
THE PERSONS WHO CAME IN CONTACT WITH
THE SPECIMEN?
Proverbs 16:13
Righteous lips are the delight of a king, and he loves him who speaks what is right
PP VS PASCUA ,GR No. 194580 ,APRIL
2011
We had occasion to rule that “not all people who came into
contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in
court”. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any
rule implementing the same that imposes such requirement.
As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly
established not to have been broken and that the prosecution
did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not
indispensable that each and every person who came into
possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.”
“Sadyang masalimuot ang
laban kontra droga, Ngunit
kung tayo ay sama-sama ay
makakaya”
JCT
“Paigtingin ang nasimulan na
laban kontra droga, magkaisa at
sama-sama tungo sa bayan na
malaya sa droga.”

Ra 9165 As Amended by Ra 10640 Pro 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ra 9165 As Amended by Ra 10640 Pro 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ra 9165 As Amended by Ra 10640 Pro 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRENGTHENING RA 9165

ATTY. ROMINAGRACE A. YADAO

Ocular Inspection by the court

Minor deviations (incomplete witnesses,) from the

In this connection, the Court states that the unexplained non-

You might also like