The Supreme Court acquitted Lulu Battung y Narmar of illegal drug sale, emphasizing the critical importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs. This decision underscores that failure to strictly adhere to procedural safeguards, especially when dealing with minuscule amounts of drugs, can lead to acquittal. The ruling highlights the prosecution’s duty to demonstrate compliance with chain of custody rules to protect the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, thereby safeguarding the accused’s constitutional rights.

From Buy-Bust to Acquittal: How a Shabu Sale Case Hinged on Evidence Handling

In this case, appellant Lulu Battung y Narmar was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for allegedly selling 0.022 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, during a buy-bust operation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found her guilty, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision. However, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings, focusing on the prosecution’s failure to adhere to the strict chain of custody requirements outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. This legal principle ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs are preserved from the moment of confiscation to their presentation in court.

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision is Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which provides a detailed procedure for handling seized drugs. This section mandates that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. These witnesses are required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The purpose of this procedure is to prevent the planting of evidence and to ensure that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 further specify that the physical inventory and photographing should occur at the place where the search warrant is served or, in the case of warrantless seizures, at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. The IRR also includes a crucial saving clause: non-compliance with these requirements may be excused under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, the prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance, which must be acknowledged and justified during trial.

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources or dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; x x x (Emphasis supplied)

In the case of Lulu Battung, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with these procedures. PO1 Juaño admitted that no physical inventory was conducted at the scene of the arrest, nor were any photographs taken in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses. The prosecution did not establish that the police officers made any effort to secure the presence of representatives from the media, the DOJ, or an elected public official. This lack of compliance created a doubt as to whether the shabu presented in court was indeed the same substance seized from the appellant.

The Court emphasized that the mere marking of the seized item at the police station is insufficient to establish the chain of custody. The insulating presence of the required witnesses is crucial to preserving an unbroken chain of custody and preventing any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity. The prosecution’s failure to acknowledge and adequately explain the procedural lapse was fatal to its case. The Court noted that it could not presume the existence of justifiable grounds for non-compliance; these grounds must be proven as a fact.

The Court also addressed the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by the arresting officers. While such a presumption exists, it cannot override the accused’s constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent. In this case, the police officers’ failure to observe the chain of custody rule without any explanation negated the presumption of regularity. Because a serious doubt existed regarding the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, the prosecution failed to establish an essential element of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, leading to the appellant’s acquittal.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of strict adherence to Section 21 when dealing with minuscule amounts of drugs. Given the small quantity of shabu seized from the appellant (0.022 grams), the risk of planting, tampering, or alteration of evidence is heightened, making compliance with the law’s exacting standards even more critical. The Court cited People v. Holgado, emphasizing the need for greater compliance with Section 21 when the amount of drug seized is minimal.

Notably, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Congress and the Judiciary have different roles in determining compliance with the chain of custody rule. The Court has the power to promulgate judicial rules, including rules of evidence. The chain of custody rule is a matter of evidence and procedure, and the Court has the final say regarding the appreciation of evidence. This means that even if there is substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, the conviction of the accused may be warranted.

Additionally, the Court pointed out that the requirements of marking seized items, conducting inventory, and taking photographs in the presence of required witnesses are police investigation procedures. Non-compliance with these procedures may warrant administrative sanctions and may even merit penalties under R.A. No. 9165, such as those related to planting of evidence. However, non-observance of such police administrative procedures should not affect the validity of the seizure of the evidence, as the admissibility of evidence is within the exclusive prerogative of the courts.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the drugs seized from the appellant and did not provide any justifiable reason for non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR. As a result, the appellant was acquitted of the crime charged.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the process of tracking seized evidence from the moment of confiscation to its presentation in court, ensuring that the evidence remains untainted and is accurately identified.
What are the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Non-compliance with Section 21 may be excused if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved; however, the prosecution must prove the valid cause for non-compliance.
What is the role of witnesses in drug cases?	The presence of witnesses from the media, DOJ, and local government is intended to safeguard against the planting of evidence and prevent any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity in the apprehension and incrimination proceedings.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	The chain of custody is important because it ensures that the drugs seized from the accused are the same drugs presented in court, protecting the accused’s right to a fair trial and preventing wrongful convictions.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, it creates doubt as to whether the evidence presented in court is the same as that seized from the accused, potentially leading to the exclusion of the evidence and the acquittal of the accused.
Does the presumption of regularity apply in drug cases?	The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty applies only when there is no reason to doubt the regularity of the police officers’ actions, and it cannot override the accused’s presumption of innocence.
What is the effect of R.A. No. 10640 on Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	R.A. No. 10640 amended Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to require only two witnesses during the inventory and photographing of seized items: an elected public official and either a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the prosecution’s burden to demonstrate compliance with chain of custody rules to protect the integrity of evidence and the constitutional rights of the accused. As drug laws continue to evolve, understanding these fundamental principles is essential for ensuring fair and just outcomes in drug-related prosecutions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. LULU BATTUNG Y NARMAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT, G.R. No. 230717, June 20, 2018