In People v. Rosalina Aure y Almazan and Gina Maravilla y Agnes, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere to the strict chain of custody requirements for seized drugs. The Court emphasized that the integrity of drug evidence must be established with moral certainty to uphold the accused’s right to a fair trial. This decision serves as a crucial reminder to law enforcement and prosecutors about the importance of meticulously following procedural safeguards in drug cases. It reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual liberties against potential abuses in drug enforcement.

Buy-Bust Gone Wrong: When Missing Witnesses Lead to Acquittal

The case revolves around an alleged buy-bust operation conducted by the District Anti-Illegal Drugs – Special Operation Task Group (DAID-SOTG) of the Quezon City Police District. Rosalina Aure and Gina Maravilla were apprehended for allegedly selling a plastic sachet containing 4.75 grams of shabu, a dangerous drug. However, the subsequent handling of the seized evidence and the conduct of the trial raised significant concerns about the integrity of the case.

At trial, the prosecution presented Police Officer 3 Fernando Salonga (PO3 Salonga) as a witness. He testified that he witnessed the sale. However, a critical point of contention was the absence of key witnesses during the inventory of the seized drugs. The inventory, conducted at the DAID-SOTG headquarters, was attended by a media representative but lacked the presence of an elected public official and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). The defense argued that this deviation from the prescribed procedure under Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), or the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” cast doubt on the evidence’s integrity.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, underscored the importance of establishing the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty. This is because the dangerous drug constitutes an integral part of the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. To achieve this, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody, from seizure to presentation in court. The chain of custody rule mandates specific procedures for handling seized drugs, including marking, physical inventory, and photography, immediately after seizure. Crucially, these steps must be conducted in the presence of the accused, or their representative, and certain mandatory witnesses.

RA 9165 specifies the required witnesses, which include: (a) a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official (prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640); or (b) an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media (after the amendment). The purpose of these witnesses is to ensure transparency and prevent any suspicion of evidence tampering or planting. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with the chain of custody is not merely a procedural technicality but a matter of substantive law, designed to safeguard against potential police abuses.

While acknowledging that strict compliance may not always be feasible due to varying field conditions, the Supreme Court has established exceptions to the rule. Non-compliance may be excused if the prosecution can demonstrate: (a) a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, the Court stressed that the prosecution bears the burden of proving these elements, and the reasons for the procedural lapses must be adequately explained. The Court cannot presume the existence of justifiable grounds; they must be proven as a matter of fact.

As the Court explained in People v. Miranda:

“[Since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence’s integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further review.”

In the present case, the prosecution’s justification for the absence of the required witnesses was deemed inadequate. PO3 Salonga testified that the team leader tried to invite the witnesses but failed to secure their presence, without providing any details about the efforts made. The Court found this explanation insufficient, as it did not demonstrate genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the witnesses’ presence. The Court also found it problematic that the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, PO3 Cordero, was not presented as a witness during the trial. The Court cited People v. Bartolini, explaining that while the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is not necessarily fatal, there must be at least someone else who can competently testify as to the fact that the sale transaction occurred.

In Bartolini, the Court held that if the testimony of other witnesses is based on hearsay, it is inadmissible. Here, PO3 Salonga was positioned inside a car, 10-15 meters away from the alleged sale. He could not overhear the conversation between the transacting parties and relied solely on PO3 Cordero’s pre-arranged signal to effect the arrest. As such, his testimony was insufficient to prove the sale transaction. Because of these lapses, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, emphasizing the importance of strictly adhering to the chain of custody rule and proving all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody of the seized drugs, particularly regarding the presence of required witnesses during the inventory and the testimony regarding the sale transaction.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	The chain of custody ensures the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, preventing tampering, contamination, or substitution of evidence, which is crucial for a fair trial.
Who are the required witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs?	Prior to RA 10640, the required witnesses were a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. After the amendment, the required witnesses are an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.
What happens if the required witnesses are not present during the inventory?	Non-compliance may be excused if the prosecution can demonstrate a justifiable reason for their absence and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
Why was the testimony of PO3 Salonga deemed insufficient?	PO3 Salonga was not in a position to overhear the conversation between the transacting parties and relied solely on PO3 Cordero’s signal, making his testimony hearsay regarding the sale transaction.
What is the role of the poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation?	The poseur-buyer directly participates in the drug transaction and can provide firsthand testimony about the sale, making their testimony crucial in proving the elements of the crime.
What is the significance of the Miranda ruling cited by the Court?	The Miranda ruling emphasizes the State’s duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody, regardless of whether the defense raises it, to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
What is the effect of an acquittal in a drug case based on chain of custody issues?	An acquittal means the accused is found not guilty and is released from custody unless lawfully held for another reason, highlighting the importance of proper procedures in drug enforcement.
What is the corpus delicti in drug cases?	The corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, which in drug cases, includes the dangerous drug itself, making its proper identification and preservation essential for conviction.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Aure underscores the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in RA 9165. Law enforcement agencies must ensure strict compliance with the chain of custody rule and the presence of required witnesses to maintain the integrity of drug evidence. Failure to do so can result in the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the perceived guilt, highlighting the paramount importance of due process and the protection of individual rights.

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. ROSALINA AURE Y ALMAZAN AND GINA MARAVILLA Y AGNES, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS., G.R. No. 237809, January 14, 2019