The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Dats Gandawali and Nol Pagalad for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, specifically methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. Despite procedural lapses by the arresting officers in adhering strictly to the chain of custody requirements outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Court emphasized that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were properly preserved. This ruling underscores that while adherence to procedural guidelines is crucial, the paramount consideration is whether the prosecution has established an unbroken chain of custody, ensuring the drug presented in court is the same one confiscated from the accused.

From Street Corner to Courtroom: How Strong Evidence Overcomes Procedure in Drug Cases

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Dats Gandawali y Gapas and Nol Pagalad y Anas arose from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Baler Police Station 2 in Quezon City. Acting on a tip, a team was formed, and PO2 Sofjan Soriano acted as the poseur-buyer. He successfully purchased shabu from Gandawali and Pagalad. The appellants were arrested, and the seized substance tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Despite the successful operation, procedural issues arose concerning the handling of the seized evidence, particularly regarding compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165.

Section 21(1) of RA 9165 outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs, requiring immediate physical inventory and photographing of the drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The law states:

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 drug shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

In this case, the police officers admitted that they did not conduct a physical inventory or take photographs of the seized items immediately after the apprehension. The reason cited was that PO1 Sarangaya was unfamiliar with the newly implemented provisions of RA 9165. This failure to strictly adhere to the procedural requirements raised questions about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. The defense argued that this non-compliance should render the evidence inadmissible, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

However, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provide a crucial saving clause. It acknowledges that strict compliance with these requirements is not always possible and allows for some flexibility, stating:

x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

The Supreme Court, relying on this provision, emphasized that the primary concern is whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. Even if there were deviations from the prescribed procedure, the conviction can still be upheld if the prosecution demonstrates an unbroken chain of custody. This chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers and handling of the evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring that the item presented is the same one seized and that its integrity has not been compromised. The Court must be convinced that the links in the chain are accounted for and that there is no reasonable doubt about the identity and condition of the evidence.

In this case, the prosecution successfully established that the seized drug was the same one examined and presented in court. After the seizure, PO2 Soriano marked the sachet with “ES 6-30-03,” the initials of PO1 Sarangaya. A request for laboratory examination was prepared. The confiscated sachet, bearing the same marking, and the request were brought to the Central Police District Crime Laboratory Office, where P/Insp. Banac conducted an examination. The substance tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. During the trial, PO2 Soriano identified the seized item as the same one he bought from the appellants, based on the marking he placed on it. The chemist, P/Insp. Banac, also brought the specimen to court during the hearing. This comprehensive accounting of the evidence convinced the Court that the drug presented was indeed the one seized from Gandawali and Pagalad.

The Court addressed the defense’s argument regarding the non-presentation of the buy-bust money as evidence, clarifying that neither law nor jurisprudence requires its presentation. The crucial point is proving that the illicit transaction occurred and presenting the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, in evidence. The Court also dismissed the appellants’ defense of extortion and frame-up. Such claims require clear and convincing evidence, which the appellants failed to provide. They did not substantiate their claim that PO1 Sarangaya tried to extort money from them, nor did they show any improper motive on the part of the police officers.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court discussed the conspiracy between the appellants. Although the lower courts did not explicitly address this issue, the Court found that the actions of Gandawali and Pagalad indicated a joint purpose and shared interest in selling the shabu. Their coordinated actions, from the exchange of money to the delivery of the drug, demonstrated a conspiracy, making them liable as co-principals in the offense. Therefore, the Court affirmed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 imposed by the lower courts, emphasizing that the appellants are not eligible for parole.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs could be upheld despite the police officers’ failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody requirements outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165. The Supreme Court had to determine if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were preserved.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers and handling of evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures that the item presented is the same one seized and that its integrity has not been compromised during handling and storage.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the DOJ, and an elected public official. This ensures transparency and accountability in handling seized evidence.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165?	Non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the drugs, as long as the prosecution can demonstrate justifiable grounds for the non-compliance. The prosecution must establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
Why was the conviction upheld in this case?	The conviction was upheld because, despite the procedural lapses, the prosecution was able to prove an unbroken chain of custody. The markings on the sachet, the request for laboratory examination, the positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, and the identification of the drug by the poseur-buyer all contributed to establishing the integrity of the evidence.
Is it necessary to present the buy-bust money as evidence in drug cases?	No, neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of the buy-bust money as evidence. The crucial element is proving that the illicit transaction took place and presenting the corpus delicti (the body of the crime), which in this case was the seized drug.
What is the significance of establishing conspiracy in this case?	Establishing conspiracy means that Gandawali and Pagalad acted together with a common purpose in selling the shabu. This makes them equally liable for the offense, regardless of their individual participation in the transaction.
What is the penalty for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165?	The penalty for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, which involves the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000 to P10,000,000, depending on the quantity of the drug involved.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Gandawali and Pagalad reaffirms the importance of preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs in drug cases. While strict compliance with procedural guidelines is encouraged, the failure to do so does not automatically invalidate a conviction if the prosecution can demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody and establish the identity of the seized drug beyond reasonable doubt. This ruling emphasizes that substance trumps form when ensuring justice and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process in drug-related offenses.

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. DATS GANDAWALI Y GAPAS AND NOL PAGALAD Y ANAS, G.R. No. 193385, December 01, 2014