Forensic Science in the Prosecution of Illegal Drugs Cases
Maria Socorro I. Diokno
Free Legal Assistance Group, 2F, Eastside Building, 77 Malakas Street,
Brgy. Pinyahan, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
*Corresponding author: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
In light of the current “war on drugs,” forensic science plays a significant role in the prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs to ensure that no innocent persons are ever wrongfully convicted. Prohibited drugs have been a problem in the country since the 1800s. The Philippines has been recognized as “a significant source of high potency crystalline methamphetamine (shabu) used both domestically and exported to locations in East and Southeast Asia and Oceania.” Yet, the prosecution of those involved with dangerous drugs has not been largely successful. Forensic chemists are crucial to successful drug prosecution but current forensic capabilities could be enhanced. Also, the vital role forensic laboratories play in the area of drug control is under-recognized. Forensic laboratories could – and should – provide scientific guidance and advice to strengthen law enforcement, activate early warning systems, enhance regulatory and monitoring capabilities, and develop responsive and effective drug control, prevention, and treatment policies.
Key words: chain of custody, current forensic capabilities, dangerous drugs, drug control, forensic chemist, prosecution
INTRODUCTION
No innocent person should ever be condemned to death or imprisoned for any length of time. Yet, in the Philippines, innocents have been wrongfully convicted, and in at least two cases, doubts have been raised on the guilt of two convicts executed by lethal injection.
In People v. Mateo (2004), the Supreme Court reviewed statistics on capital cases. It found that between 1993 and Jun 2004, “the trial courts have imposed capital punishment in approximately 1,493, out of which 907 cases have been passed upon in review by the Court. In the Supreme Court, where these staggering numbers find their way on automatic review, the penalty has been affirmed in only 230 cases comprising but 25.36% of the total number. Significantly, in more than half or 64.61% of the cases, the judgment has been modified through an order of remand for further proceedings, by the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, or by a reduction of the sentence. Indeed, the reduction by the Court of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua has been made in no less than 483 cases or 53.25% of the total number. The Court has also rendered a judgment of acquittal in sixty-five (65) cases. In sum, the cases where the judgment of death has either been modified or vacated consist of an astounding 71.77% of the total of death penalty cases directly elevated before the Court on automatic review ….” read more
REFERENCES
BLACK HC. Undated. Black’s Law Dictionary.
[DDB] Dangerous Drugs Board. 2016. Regulation No. 2, Amending Section 2 of Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 2007 entitled “Providing for Revised Guidelines in the Conduct of Barangay Drug-Clearing Operations.”
[DDB] Dangerous Drugs Board. Retrieved from http://www.ddb.gov.ph/about-ddb/history on 17 Aug 2016.
[DDB] Dangerous Drugs Board. Retrieved from http://www.ddb.gov.ph/research-statistics/research/45-research-and-statistics/88-2012-researches#a on 17 Aug 2016.
GIANNELLI P. 2006. Wrongful Convictions and Forensic Science: the Need to Regulate Crime Labs.
GOLDMAN A. 2009. Study: Separate Police, Labs Because of Bias.
HAMMOND B. Undated. Powerpoint Presentation, “Assessment of Forensic Infrastructure.”
[ILAC] International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation. 2015. The advantages of being Accredited. Retrieved from http://www.turkak.org.tr/TURKAKSITE/ILAC_eng/ILAC_The_Advantages_2015.pdf on 10 Mar 2017.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 2009. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.
[NFSTC] National Forensic Science Technology Center. Retrieved from www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/drugs/how.html on 26 Jul 2016.
[PDEA] Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 2014. Annual Report.
[PDEA] Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 2015. Annual Report.
[PDEA] Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. Laboratory Service Citizen’s Charter.
People v. Ancheta. 13 Jun 2012. G.R. No. 197371.
People v. Climaco, 13 Jun 2012, G.R. No. 199403.
People v. Dahil and Castro. 12 Jan 2015. G.R. No. 212196.
People v. Garcia. 25 Feb 2009. G.R. No. 173480.
People v. Mateo. 7 Jul 2004. G.R. Nos. 147678-87.
People v. Pajarin and Pallaya. 12 Jan 2011. G.R. No. 190640.
People v. Umipang. 25 Apr 2012. G.R. 190321.
[PNP] Philippine National Police. Undated. Power Point Presentation, “Use of Forensic Science in Police Investigation.”
[PNP] Philippine National Police. Sep 2014. [PNP] Philippine National Police. Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation, PNP Police Manual PNPM-D-O-2-14 (DO).
[PNP] Philippine National Police. 23 Aug 2016. Power Point Presentation before the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
REMBERG B, STEAD AH. 2005. Editorial: Science in Drug Control. Bulletin on Narcotics LVII(1&2).
Republic Act No. 9165. 7 Jun 2002. An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 12th Congress of the Philippines.
Rimorin v. People. 30 Apr 2003. G.R. 146481.
[SWGDRUG] Scientific Working Group for the Analysis of Seized Drugs. Retrieved from http://swgdrug.org on 12 Mar 2017.
TILSTONE W. 2008. Accreditation in Forensic Science.
[UNODC] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2010. Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit, Forensic Services and Infrastructure.
US State Department. 2009. International Narcotics Control Strategy Report.
VICTORIA FPF. Jul 2016. “Criminalizing Drug Use in the Philippines: the ‘Black Sunday’ of 1908.” Bayanihan News.
WARREN P. 2015. Laboratory Independence, Control and Exonerations.
