In People v. Angeles, the Supreme Court acquitted Norman Angeles of illegal drug sale due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, particularly regarding witness requirements and evidence preservation. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, especially those involving minuscule amounts, strict compliance with procedural safeguards is crucial to protect the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s heightened scrutiny in drug cases and serves as a reminder of the importance of meticulously following legal protocols to prevent wrongful convictions. It reinforces the principle that the presumption of regularity in law enforcement duties cannot override an individual’s fundamental rights.

When a Shabu Sachet Disappears: Did Police Procedures Guarantee Justice?

Norman Angeles was accused of selling 0.05 grams of shabu in a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented testimonies from police officers, while Angeles maintained his innocence, claiming he was arrested without a valid reason. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Angeles guilty, but the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court (SC), however, reversed the lower courts’ rulings, focusing on critical lapses in the handling of evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision rested heavily on the concept of chain of custody, which ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items. According to Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002:

Sec. 1. Definition of Terms- x x x

b. “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.  Such records of movements  and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item,  the  date  and  the  time  when  such  transfer  of custody  were made in the course of safekeeping and use  in  court as  evidence,  and  the  final  disposition.

The Court emphasized that the prosecution must account for every link in this chain, from seizure to presentation in court. This includes detailing who handled the evidence, how it was stored, and what precautions were taken to prevent tampering. This stringent requirement is particularly vital in cases involving small quantities of drugs due to the increased risk of evidence manipulation. In such cases, courts must exercise a higher degree of scrutiny to ensure that the accused’s rights are fully protected.

A crucial aspect of maintaining the chain of custody involves compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This section outlines specific procedures for handling seized drugs, including inventory and photography in the presence of the accused and certain witnesses. Before the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, three witnesses were required: a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.

After the amendment, the witness requirement was modified to include an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. The presence of these witnesses is designed to prevent the planting, switching, or contamination of evidence. Building on this principle, the Court in People v. Tomawis underscored the importance of these witnesses at the time of arrest to prevent abuse and ensure transparency. In this case, the prosecution failed to meet these requirements, as only a media representative witnessed the inventory.

Moreover, the Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimonies and a lack of evidence regarding the preservation of the seized substance. PO1 Paran’s statements in the Sinumpaang Salaysay contradicted his testimonies in open court. The Court noted that there was no information on how the seized item was preserved, which raised doubts about its integrity and evidentiary value. This failure to adequately document the handling of the shabu undermined the prosecution’s case and created reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt.

The Court reiterated that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties does not automatically validate the actions of law enforcement officers. Rather, this presumption is disputable and can be overturned by evidence of irregularity, as highlighted in People v. Sipin. The Court held that when there are lapses in procedure, such as failing to comply with witness requirements, the presumption of regularity cannot be invoked to uphold a conviction. This underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual rights and ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence and adherence to legal protocols.

The absence of a representative from the National Prosecution Service or an elected public official during the inventory and photography of the seized shabu was a critical factor in the Court’s decision. The prosecution did not offer a justifiable reason for this non-compliance, nor did they demonstrate genuine efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses. This failure to follow the witness requirements under Section 21 was a significant procedural lapse that the Court could not overlook.

While acknowledging the seriousness of drug offenses, the Supreme Court emphasized that the government’s efforts to combat drug use and trafficking must not infringe upon an accused’s constitutional rights. In People v. Angeles, the prosecution’s failure to meet the required burden of proof led to the acquittal of the accused on the grounds of reasonable doubt. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal procedures and upholding the presumption of innocence, even in cases involving serious crimes.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody for the seized drugs, particularly concerning witness requirements and proper documentation.
Why was the accused acquitted?	The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory witness requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 and did not provide sufficient evidence of proper evidence preservation.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of handling seized drugs from the moment of confiscation to presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug.
Who are the required witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs?	Depending on the date of the offense, required witnesses include representatives from the media and DOJ, or an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or media.
What is the effect of non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165?	Non-compliance with Section 21 can lead to the inadmissibility of the seized drugs as evidence. It can result in the acquittal of the accused if the prosecution fails to provide justifiable grounds for the non-compliance.
What is the presumption of regularity in law enforcement?	The presumption of regularity is the assumption that law enforcement officers perform their duties properly. However, this presumption is disputable and does not override the accused’s right to be presumed innocent.
Why is it important to strictly comply with chain of custody rules?	Strict compliance prevents the planting, switching, or contamination of evidence, protecting the accused from wrongful conviction. It upholds the integrity of the criminal justice system.
What did the Supreme Court say about the presumption of innocence?	The Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right and that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This presumption cannot be overcome by the mere presumption of regularity in law enforcement.

This case underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance in drug cases and serves as a reminder that the protection of individual rights must remain paramount, even in the face of the government’s efforts to combat drug-related crimes.

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, VS. NORMAN ANGELES Y MIRANDA, G.R. No. 224223, November 20, 2019