In a critical ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Nova De Leon y Weves due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere strictly to the procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” The Court emphasized that in drug-related cases, the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be established with moral certainty, and any deviation from the prescribed procedures without justifiable grounds casts doubt on the corpus delicti. This decision underscores the importance of protecting the rights of the accused by ensuring that law enforcement follows proper protocol when handling evidence, thereby preventing potential abuses such as planting or tampering with evidence.

Did Police Missteps Free a Suspected Drug Dealer? Examining Chain of Custody in ‘De Leon’

The case of People of the Philippines v. Nova De Leon y Weves revolves around an alleged buy-bust operation where accused-appellant Nova De Leon was apprehended for reportedly selling 0.01 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, to a police poseur-buyer. De Leon was subsequently charged with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The central legal question arises from the procedures followed by the police in handling the seized drug evidence. Specifically, did the failure to comply strictly with Section 21 of RA 9165 compromise the integrity of the evidence and thus warrant an acquittal? This issue highlights a critical balance between effective drug enforcement and the protection of individual rights.

The facts presented at trial revealed inconsistencies and procedural lapses that ultimately led to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the lower courts’ conviction. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of SPO1 Luminog Lumabao, the poseur-buyer, and SPO1 Ricky Macaraeg, a back-up operative. Their account detailed a buy-bust operation initiated following an informant’s tip about De Leon’s alleged drug activities. However, the defense argued that the operation was fabricated, pointing to the failure of the police to adhere to the mandatory requirements for handling seized drug evidence as outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165.

Section 21 of RA 9165 is explicit in its requirements for preserving the integrity of seized drugs. It mandates that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure, must physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These witnesses are required to sign the inventory, ensuring transparency and accountability in the handling of evidence. The rationale behind this provision is to prevent the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug, thereby safeguarding the rights of the accused.

SEC. 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 of 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:

In the case at bar, the Supreme Court found that the police officers failed to comply with these requirements in several key respects. First, the inventory and photographing of the seized drug were not conducted immediately after seizure, nor were they done at the place of apprehension. Instead, they were carried out at the Barangay Hall of Tambo, a location not explicitly authorized by the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, and without a reasonable explanation for this deviation. Furthermore, the marking of the seized plastic sachet was not done immediately upon seizure but later at the Barangay Hall. The Court cited People v. Dahil, emphasizing that immediate marking is the starting point in the custodial link, and failure to do so casts reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.

x x x “Marking” means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.

Second, and perhaps more critically, the police officers failed to secure the presence of all the mandatory witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized drug. SPO1 Lumabao admitted that only a Barangay Tanod witnessed the procedure, with no representatives from the DOJ or the media present. The Court reiterated the importance of these witnesses, as articulated in People v. Tomawis, noting that their presence serves as an “insulating presence” to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Moreover, the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable ground for the absence of the DOJ and media representatives, rendering their non-compliance with Section 21 even more problematic.

The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drag. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, “planting” or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.

The Supreme Court also addressed the appellate court’s reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, asserting that this presumption cannot override the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The Court emphasized that the procedural lapses committed by the police officers were affirmative proofs of irregularity, negating any presumption of regularity. Referencing People v. Catalan, the Court warned against subordinating the constitutional guarantee of presumed innocence to a mere rule of evidence.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the buy-bust operation itself appeared questionable due to the police officers’ deliberate disregard of the legal requirements. The absence of unbiased witnesses during the seizure and the failure to properly document and preserve the evidence led the Court to conclude that the operation may have been fabricated. This underscored the importance of strict adherence to procedural guidelines to prevent potential abuses and ensure the integrity of the criminal justice system.

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court acquitted Nova De Leon, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also directed the National Police Commission to conduct an investigation into the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation, signaling a strong message against procedural lapses and potential misconduct in drug enforcement cases. The Court further reminded prosecutors to diligently prove compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR, as it is fundamental to preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. Overall, this case stresses that strict adherence to procedural safeguards is paramount in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the legal process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the police officers’ failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 compromised the integrity of the seized drug evidence, thus warranting an acquittal for the accused. This involved examining whether the procedural lapses undermined the prosecution’s case and violated the rights of the accused.
What is Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs. It mandates the immediate inventory and photographing of the drugs after seizure in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
Why is Section 21 of RA 9165 important?	Section 21 is crucial because it aims to preserve the integrity and identity of seized drugs, preventing potential abuses such as planting, contamination, or loss of evidence. Strict compliance with this section ensures transparency and accountability in the handling of evidence, protecting the rights of the accused.
What procedural lapses did the police officers commit in this case?	The police officers failed to conduct the inventory and photographing of the seized drug immediately after seizure and at the place of apprehension. They also failed to secure the presence of all the mandatory witnesses (media and DOJ representatives) during the inventory process.
What was the role of the mandatory witnesses (media, DOJ, and elected public official) in this case?	The presence of the mandatory witnesses is intended to provide an “insulating presence” that prevents planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. These witnesses ensure that the seizure and inventory process is conducted transparently and without any undue influence.
How did the Supreme Court address the appellate court’s reliance on the presumption of regularity?	The Supreme Court stated that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot override the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The procedural lapses committed by the police officers were affirmative proofs of irregularity, negating any presumption of regularity.
What was the significance of the Court’s decision to acquit Nova De Leon?	The acquittal of Nova De Leon underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases. It sends a message to law enforcement that failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 can result in the dismissal of a case, even if there is evidence of drug possession or sale.
What action did the Supreme Court direct concerning the police officers involved?	The Supreme Court directed the National Police Commission to conduct an investigation into the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. This reflects the Court’s concern about the potential for misconduct and the need for accountability in drug enforcement cases.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Nova De Leon serves as a potent reminder of the critical importance of procedural compliance in drug-related cases. By strictly enforcing the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, the Court seeks to safeguard the rights of the accused, prevent potential abuses, and maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system. This ruling reinforces the principle that effective law enforcement must be balanced with the protection of individual liberties, ensuring that justice is served fairly and impartially.

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 v. De Leon, G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018