ill-motivated actions, and/or negligence that result in the dismissal of cases or the acquittal of the accused 

THE CASE
This case study aims to penetrate deep to the root cause of the problem and patched the holes of doubts in proving the case to be filed. But from the standpoint of errors on the part of the PNP personnel and the Prosecution Service, this case study aims to review and uncover the recurrence of specific lapses, ill-motivated actions, and/or negligence that result in the dismissal of cases or the acquittal of the accused. The study also aims to serve as a deterrent to the repetition of the same deliberate acts, mistakes, and negligence in future cases. Dismissal of filed drug cases create more negative impact on the side of law enforcement as it blunts its expected effectiveness in enforcing the law.

Noteworthy however that the focus timeline of this case study are the cases decided in the year 2016-2021 at Cebu City.

Lapses in the Prosecution of Those Involved in Illicit Drugs (Philippine Journal of Science) (Diokno: Forensic Science in Prosecution of Drugs, Vol. 147 No. 1, March 2018).
The prosecution of those involved with dangerous drugs has not been largely successful. In People v. Ancheta et al. (2012), the Supreme Court reiterated its observation in People v. Garcia (2009), which noted the high rate of acquittals and dismissals in cases involving dangerous drugs: “We close with the thought that6 this Court is not unaware that in the five years that R.A. No. 9165 has been in place, the rate of cases that resulted in acquittals and dismissals was higher than the rate of conviction. Under PDEA records, the dismissals and acquittals accounted for 56% because of the failure of the police authorities to observe proper procedure under the law, among others. A recent international study conducted in 2008 showed that 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 charges against the rest were dismissed or the accused were acquitted.” The Court then went further, looking into its own records, where it noted: “Our own data on the cases filed with us from 2006 to 2011 show that, out of those in which this Court made acquittals and reversals, 85% involved failure of the prosecution to establish the arresting officer’s compliance with the procedural requirements outlined in the Section 21 of R.A. 9165” (People v. Ancheta 2021)
Most cases involve what is known as “buy-bust operations,” which the Supreme Court has described as follows:
“A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. In People v. Tan, this Court itself recognized that by very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses, accordingly, been laid down in the law (R.A. No. 9165) for the police to strictly follow. The prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures have been followed in proving the elements of the defined offenses (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)” People v. Umipang (2021).
Crucial to a drug prosecution is the establishment of what is known in law as corpus delicti (body of crime). Corpus delicti is any objective proof that a crime has indeed taken place and this must be proven in order to convict a person of the crime (Rimorin v. People 2003; Black’s Law Dictionary). In the case involving dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti is the presentation of the dangerous drug itself (People v. Climaco 2021). In People v. Climaco (2012), the Supreme Court reiterate its ruling in People v. Alcuizar, stressing the State’s obligation to prove the corpus delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs:
“The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in the case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act. No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drugs unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.”
The chain of custody in drugs cases has been described by the Supreme Court as referring to four links: “first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.” (People v. Dahil and Castro 2015).
In this study, it is important to note the reasons why cases file against those engaged in Illegal Drugs transactions were dismissed despite the efforts of our police operatives and different units in filing airtight cases against these offenders.