The Supreme Court held that failure to comply strictly with the witness requirements in drug cases compromises the integrity of the evidence and can lead to acquittal. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting individual rights during police operations and ensuring that evidence is free from doubt. It serves as a reminder that procedural safeguards are in place to guarantee fairness and prevent wrongful convictions. This decision emphasizes that law enforcement must adhere to established protocols, and any deviation must be justified to maintain the integrity of the evidence.

Drug Busts Under Scrutiny: When Does Non-Compliance Lead to Acquittal?

In People of the Philippines v. Elizalde Jagdon, the accused, Jagdon, faced charges for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Jagdon was apprehended during a buy-bust operation and subsequently charged with selling and possessing marijuana. The central question was whether the police followed proper procedure in handling the seized drugs, particularly concerning the presence of required witnesses during the inventory and marking of evidence. This case highlights the critical balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual liberties, focusing on the strict adherence to procedural rules in drug-related arrests and evidence handling.

The facts revealed that on March 17, 2010, the City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force Group (CAID-SOTG) received a tip about Jagdon selling marijuana. Acting on this information, a buy-bust team was organized, leading to Jagdon’s arrest. During the operation, Jagdon allegedly sold twelve sticks of marijuana to a poseur-buyer, PO2 Ian Piano, and was later found in possession of forty-five additional sticks. However, a critical issue arose regarding compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which mandates the presence of specific witnesses during the inventory and marking of seized drugs. It requires that the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs be done in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service, and an elected public official.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially convicted Jagdon, but on appeal, the Supreme Court took a closer look at the procedural aspects of the arrest and evidence handling. The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of adhering to the chain of custody rule, which ensures the integrity and identity of the drugs seized. The chain of custody involves the documented authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court. This process includes identifying each person who handled the evidence, along with the dates and times of custody transfers.

The importance of preserving the integrity of drug evidence cannot be overstated. Illegal drugs have unique characteristics, making them susceptible to tampering or substitution, whether accidental or intentional. To avoid any doubt, the drugs presented in court must be the same ones recovered from the accused. The Supreme Court highlighted the links in the chain of custody, emphasizing the seizure and marking of the drugs, the turnover to the investigating officer, the transfer to the forensic chemist, and the final submission to the court. This process helps to prevent any tampering or doubts about the authenticity of the evidence.

However, in this case, the Supreme Court found that the police had failed to comply with the witness requirements stipulated in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. During the inventory and marking of the drugs seized from Jagdon, there was no representative from the media or the Department of Justice (DOJ) present. Instead, the barangay secretary and the Purok President were present, which did not satisfy the legal requirements. This non-compliance raised serious concerns about the integrity and identity of the seized drugs.

The Court addressed the argument that Jagdon had raised the issue of non-compliance for the first time on appeal. Citing People v. Miranda, the Court clarified that an accused can challenge the non-compliance of procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, even if it’s for the first time on appeal. The Court emphasized that an appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review, allowing the appellate court to correct any errors, even those not specifically assigned. This principle underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring justice and fairness, even if procedural issues are raised late in the process.

Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 requires that, immediately after seizure, the drugs must be inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, a media representative and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. R.A. No. 10640 amended this provision, requiring the presence of the accused, a representative of the media or the National Prosecution Service, and an elected public official. Regardless of the amendment, the presence of insulating witnesses is crucial in ensuring the integrity of the buy-bust operation and safeguarding against planting of evidence or frame-ups. The Court stressed that failure to comply with the third-party witness requirement casts doubt on the seized drugs’ integrity, creating reasonable doubt and leading to acquittal.

While the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provide a saving clause for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must explain and justify any deviations from the prescribed procedure. In People v. Año, the Court emphasized that the saving clause applies only when the prosecution explains the reason for the deviation and proves that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The prosecution must acknowledge and justify any deviations during the trial, proving the grounds for non-compliance and the steps taken to preserve the evidence’s integrity.

In this case, the prosecution failed to provide any justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses during the inventory and marking of the seized items. The Court emphasized that buy-bust operations are planned, and the police are expected to prepare for compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The lack of effort to secure the presence of the required witnesses compromised the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation and raised doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

The Supreme Court reiterated the prosecutor’s duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody, regardless of whether the defense raises the issue. The absence of the required witnesses at the inventory and marking stage compromised the initial links in the chain of custody, raising doubts about whether the drugs presented in court were indeed recovered from the accused. The failure to observe the witness requirement undermines the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, leaving the courts with no choice but to acquit the accused.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the police followed the proper procedure, as outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, in handling the seized drugs, particularly regarding the presence of required witnesses during the inventory and marking of evidence. This compliance is crucial to ensure the integrity of the evidence.
What does the chain of custody rule entail?	The chain of custody rule refers to the documented authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court. It includes identifying each person who handled the evidence, along with the dates and times of custody transfers.
Why is it important to preserve the integrity of drug evidence?	It is essential to preserve the integrity of drug evidence because illegal drugs have unique characteristics, making them susceptible to tampering or substitution, whether accidental or intentional. To avoid any doubt, the drugs presented in court must be the same ones recovered from the accused.
What are the witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 requires that the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs be done in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service, and an elected public official. These witnesses ensure the integrity of the process and protect against planting of evidence.
Can an accused raise the issue of non-compliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal?	Yes, the Supreme Court clarified that an accused can challenge the non-compliance of procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, even if it’s for the first time on appeal. An appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review, allowing the appellate court to correct any errors.
What happens if the police fail to comply with the witness requirements?	If the police fail to comply with the witness requirements, it casts doubt on the integrity of the seized drugs, creating reasonable doubt and potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. The presence of third-party witnesses is crucial in ensuring the integrity of the buy-bust operation.
What must the prosecution do if there is non-compliance with Section 21?	The prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. This explanation must be presented during the trial.
What is the prosecutor’s duty in drug cases?	The prosecutor has a duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody, regardless of whether the defense raises the issue. The prosecutor must ensure that the necessary steps were taken to maintain the integrity of the evidence.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Elizalde Jagdon highlights the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in drug cases, particularly the witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The ruling reinforces the need for law enforcement to comply with established protocols to protect individual rights and ensure the integrity of evidence. Failure to do so can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

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, G.R. No. 234648, March 27, 2019