The Importance of Adhering to the Three-Witness Rule in Drug Cases

People of the Philippines v. Ma. Floriza Fulgado y Colas @ ‘Thane,’ G.R. No. 246193, February 19, 2020

Imagine being arrested for a crime you didn’t commit, solely because the evidence against you was mishandled. This is the reality for many Filipinos caught in the web of the country’s drug war. The case of Ma. Floriza Fulgado y Colas, known as ‘Thane,’ highlights a critical aspect of Philippine drug law enforcement: the strict adherence to the three-witness rule under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Fulgado was accused of selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. However, her conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court due to procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drugs.

The key issue in Fulgado’s case was whether the police followed the mandatory protocol for drug seizures, which is designed to prevent planting of evidence and ensure the integrity of the seized items. This case underscores the importance of these procedures in upholding justice and fairness in drug-related prosecutions.

Understanding the Legal Framework

The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, specifically Section 21, outlines the procedure for handling confiscated drugs. This section mandates that the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or their representative, along with three required witnesses: a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. This ‘three-witness rule’ is crucial for maintaining the chain of custody and ensuring the evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

Legal terms such as ‘corpus delicti’ refer to the body of the crime, which in drug cases, is the seized drug itself. The integrity of the corpus delicti must be preserved from the moment of seizure until it is presented in court. Failure to comply with these procedures can lead to the dismissal of the case, as seen in Fulgado’s situation.

For example, if a police officer seizes drugs during a buy-bust operation but fails to immediately conduct the inventory in the presence of the required witnesses, the evidence could be compromised, leading to doubts about its authenticity.

The Journey of Ma. Floriza Fulgado’s Case

Ma. Floriza Fulgado’s ordeal began on February 11, 2015, when she was arrested near the Iglesia Ni Cristo church in Cardona, Rizal, alongside her co-accused, Edlyn Tamayo. The police claimed to have conducted a buy-bust operation, resulting in the seizure of shabu from both women.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Binangonan, Rizal, initially found Fulgado and Tamayo guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, sentencing them to life imprisonment and fines. Fulgado appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the integrity of the seized drugs was compromised due to non-compliance with the three-witness rule.

The CA upheld the RTC’s decision, but Fulgado further appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court scrutinized the procedural steps taken by the police, particularly the inventory and marking of the seized drugs.

Key findings from the Supreme Court’s ruling include:

• The physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were not done immediately at the place of arrest.
• Only an elected official was present during the inventory at the police station, with no representatives from the media or the DOJ.

The Court emphasized the importance of the three-witness rule, stating, ‘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…’

Due to the lack of justification for non-compliance with the three-witness rule and the absence of effort to secure the required witnesses, the Supreme Court acquitted Fulgado and Tamayo, highlighting the procedural lapses that compromised the integrity of the evidence.

Practical Implications and Key Lessons

This ruling sets a precedent for future drug-related cases in the Philippines, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the three-witness rule. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow the prescribed procedures to ensure the validity of their evidence.

For individuals and businesses, understanding these legal requirements can be crucial in defending against wrongful accusations. If you find yourself or your business involved in a drug-related case, ensure that the arresting officers followed the proper protocol, including the presence of the required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of seized items.

Key Lessons:

• Always verify that the three-witness rule was followed during drug seizures.
• Document any procedural lapses and use them to challenge the validity of the evidence.
• Seek legal counsel immediately if you believe your rights have been violated.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the three-witness rule in drug cases?

The three-witness rule requires that the inventory and photographing of seized drugs be done in the presence of the accused or their representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and an elected public official.

Why is the three-witness rule important?

It ensures the integrity of the seized drugs and prevents the planting of evidence, which is crucial for fair and just prosecutions.

What happens if the three-witness rule is not followed?

Failure to comply with the three-witness rule can lead to the dismissal of the case, as the integrity of the evidence may be compromised.

Can the absence of witnesses be justified?

Yes, but the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for the absence of witnesses and prove that the integrity of the seized items was still preserved.

What should I do if I’m arrested in a drug case?

Seek legal counsel immediately and ensure that the arresting officers followed the proper protocol, including the three-witness rule.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and drug-related cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.