In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Mark Andrew Paz y Rocaford, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of seized drugs, a crucial element in proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt in drug-related cases. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. It emphasizes that law enforcement officers must meticulously document and preserve the integrity of seized evidence, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected against potential abuses such as planting or contamination of evidence.

When Procedural Lapses Lead to Acquittal: Examining the Paz Drug Case

Mark Andrew Paz y Rocaford was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for allegedly selling methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, in a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Paz sold two sachets of shabu to an undercover police officer. However, the defense argued that Paz was a victim of a frame-up, alleging irregularities in the handling of the seized drugs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Paz guilty, a decision which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Paz appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

At the heart of this case is Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. This section mandates that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure, conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media. The law’s original intent, requiring three witnesses, aimed to ensure transparency and prevent the planting of evidence, a common concern in drug cases. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether these procedures were strictly followed.

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:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof

The Supreme Court found significant lapses in the prosecution’s compliance with Section 21. The marking, inventory, and photographing of the confiscated items were not executed at the place of seizure but at the PDEA office in Quezon City. Critically, there was no representative from the DOJ or the media present during the inventory, as required by the law at the time of the offense. The Court emphasized the importance of marking the seized items immediately upon confiscation and in the presence of the accused, which was not done in this case. This raised doubts about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu.

The Court referenced the ruling in People v. Mendoza to highlight the significance of witness presence during seizure and marking of drugs, saying:

[w]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, “planting” or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [R.A.] No. 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 [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the x x x presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.”

The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to provide any justifiable reason for not complying with the witness requirements, citing the ruling in People v. Lulu Battung y Narmar, which outlines limited circumstances where the absence of required witnesses may be excused. The prosecution did not demonstrate that the place of arrest was a remote area, that the safety of witnesses was threatened, or that earnest efforts were made to secure their presence. These omissions were critical in the Court’s decision.

Given the procedural lapses and the prosecution’s failure to provide adequate justification, the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision and acquitted Paz. The Court emphasized that compliance with Section 21 is not a mere formality but a matter of substantive law that protects the rights of the accused. The prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, coupled with the lack of justification for non-compliance with witness requirements, raised reasonable doubt about Paz’s guilt. Consequently, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime.

This case highlights the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Law enforcement officers must ensure that seized drugs are properly marked, inventoried, and photographed immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses. Any deviation from these procedures must be justified with credible evidence. Failure to comply with these requirements can lead to the exclusion of evidence and the acquittal of the accused, as demonstrated in the case of People v. Paz. The decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to prioritize due process and respect the rights of individuals, even in the context of anti-drug operations.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory requirements, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution account for each link in the chain of possession of seized drugs, from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court as evidence. This ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs.
Who are the required witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	At the time of the offense, Section 21 required the presence of an elected public official and representatives from both the media and the Department of Justice during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs.
What happens if the required witnesses are not present?	The absence of the required witnesses can cast doubt on the integrity of the seized drugs, potentially leading to the exclusion of evidence and the acquittal of the accused. However, non-compliance can be excused if the prosecution provides justifiable reasons and proves that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
What constitutes a justifiable reason for non-compliance with Section 21?	Justifiable reasons may include situations where the place of arrest is a remote area, the safety of witnesses is threatened, or earnest efforts to secure their presence have proven futile. However, the prosecution must prove these reasons as a matter of fact.
What is the role of marking in the chain of custody?	Marking the seized items with the initials of the arresting officer or poseur-buyer serves as the starting point in the custodial link. It is vital for identifying the seized drugs and tracking their handling.
Why is it important to mark the seized items immediately?	Immediate marking is crucial because it establishes a clear connection between the seized items and the accused, preventing any possibility of substitution or tampering.
How does this ruling affect future drug cases?	This ruling reinforces the importance of strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and serves as a reminder to law enforcement officers to prioritize due process and protect the rights of the accused in drug cases.
Can a drug case be dismissed if there are minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the arresting officers?	Minor inconsistencies that do not pertain to the elements of the crime may be considered inconsequential. However, significant lapses in following the required procedures for handling evidence can lead to dismissal.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Paz serves as a stark reminder that the fight against illegal drugs must not come at the expense of fundamental rights and due process. The strict adherence to procedural safeguards, such as the chain of custody rule, is paramount to ensuring the integrity of evidence and preventing wrongful convictions. This case underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties while upholding the rule of law.

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, vs. Mark Andrew Paz y Rocaford, Accused-Appellant., G.R. No. 233466, August 07, 2019