In People v. Diaz, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Allan Diaz for the illegal sale of shabu, despite arguments regarding procedural lapses in the handling of evidence. The Court emphasized that failure to object to the admissibility of evidence during trial waives the right to question it on appeal, and that the chain of custody of the seized drug was sufficiently established. This ruling reinforces the importance of timely objections in legal proceedings and highlights that convictions can be upheld even if there are deviations from standard drug evidence handling procedures, provided the integrity of the evidence is maintained.

When Silence Implies Consent: The Dilemma of Unchallenged Evidence in Drug Cases

Allan Diaz was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This conviction stemmed from a buy-bust operation where Diaz allegedly sold shabu to an undercover police officer. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. Diaz appealed, primarily arguing that the police officers failed to properly mark, inventory, and photograph the seized drugs in accordance with the procedural requirements of R.A. No. 9165. The Supreme Court (SC) had to determine whether these alleged procedural lapses warranted the reversal of Diaz’s conviction, especially considering that Diaz did not raise these objections during the trial.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing a crucial point of law: the failure to object to the admissibility of evidence during trial constitutes a waiver of the right to do so on appeal. The Court stated that:

Objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. When a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.

In Diaz’s case, the Court noted that he did not contest the admissibility of the seized shabu during the trial. He never argued that the police officers’ handling of the evidence was flawed or that it affected the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. Because Diaz raised these issues for the first time on appeal, the Court ruled that he had effectively waived his right to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. This principle is rooted in the idea that parties must raise objections at the earliest opportunity to allow the trial court to address and correct any potential errors.

Building on this principle, the Court also addressed the issue of compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which outlines the procedures for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs 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.

While strict compliance with these procedures is ideal, the Court has clarified that non-compliance does not automatically render the seized evidence inadmissible. Instead, the focus is on whether the **chain of custody** has been unbroken. The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfer and handling of evidence, from seizure to presentation in court, ensuring that the evidence is the same item seized and that it has not been tampered with.

The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established an unbroken chain of custody in Diaz’s case. The CA had observed that:

PO2 Coronel marked the confiscated sachet of “shabu” at the police station and in the presence of appellant and the duty investigator. PO2 Coronel clarified that the reason why he marked the said “shabu” at the police station and not at the scene of the crime was because the place where they transacted was dark. Thus, it is only proper to preserve the confiscated item and mark it in a lighted and safe place which is at the police station.

The appellate court also noted that the shabu was properly turned over to the duty investigator, then brought to the forensic chemist for examination. The members of the buy-bust team executed their affidavits of arrest, and PO2 Coronel positively identified the seized drugs at trial. The key point is that the prosecution was able to demonstrate a clear and consistent account of how the evidence was handled, from the time of seizure to its presentation in court. This established the integrity of the evidence, despite the initial marking occurring at the police station rather than at the scene of the crime.

In essence, the Supreme Court in People v. Diaz emphasized two critical aspects of drug-related cases: the importance of raising timely objections to the admissibility of evidence and the significance of establishing an unbroken chain of custody. The first aspect highlights the responsibility of the defense to actively challenge any perceived irregularities in the handling of evidence during the trial itself. This allows the trial court to address these concerns promptly and make informed decisions. The second underscores that even if there are deviations from the strict procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, a conviction can still be upheld if the prosecution can demonstrate that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved through an unbroken chain of custody. The court will consider factors such as the marking of the evidence, its handling and transfer, and its identification in court.

This ruling is particularly relevant in the context of drug-related offenses, where procedural technicalities can often be used to challenge the validity of the prosecution’s case. The Court’s emphasis on timely objections and the chain of custody serves to balance the need to ensure fair trial procedures with the need to effectively prosecute drug offenders. It prevents the defense from strategically withholding objections until appeal, where the trial court has no opportunity to rectify any perceived errors. Moreover, it recognizes that minor deviations from procedural requirements should not automatically invalidate a conviction if the integrity of the evidence remains intact.

This contrasts with a strict interpretation of Section 21, which would require absolute adherence to the prescribed procedures, regardless of whether the integrity of the evidence has been compromised. The Supreme Court’s approach acknowledges the practical realities of law enforcement, where strict compliance with every procedural detail may not always be feasible. The Court also gave more weight to the testimony of the police officer, a decision that is usually dependent on the credibility of the witness. The decision also aligns with the broader principle that the primary goal of the justice system is to ascertain the truth and ensure that justice is served. While procedural rules are important, they should not be applied in a way that obstructs the pursuit of truth or allows guilty parties to escape punishment on technicalities.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the accused’s conviction for illegal sale of drugs should be reversed due to alleged procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drugs, specifically concerning the marking, inventory, and photographing of the evidence.
What is the significance of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the procedures for the custody and disposition of seized drugs, including the requirement for immediate inventory and photographing of the drugs in the presence of the accused and other witnesses.
What does ‘chain of custody’ mean in drug cases?	Chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfer and handling of evidence, from seizure to presentation in court, ensuring that the evidence is the same item seized and that it has not been tampered with.
What happens if the police fail to strictly comply with Section 21?	The Supreme Court has clarified that non-compliance does not automatically render the seized evidence inadmissible; the focus is on whether the chain of custody has been unbroken.
Why did the Supreme Court uphold the conviction in this case?	The Court upheld the conviction because the accused failed to object to the admissibility of the evidence during trial, effectively waiving his right to raise the issue on appeal, and because the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
What is the effect of failing to object to evidence during trial?	Failing to object to the admissibility of evidence during trial constitutes a waiver of the right to do so on appeal, meaning the appellate court will generally not consider the objection.
What was the accused’s defense in this case?	The accused claimed that he was merely walking home when he was suddenly arrested and later learned he was being charged with violation of R.A. No. 9165, essentially denying the buy-bust operation.
What was the modification made by the Supreme Court regarding the penalty?	The Supreme Court affirmed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 but added the modification that the accused shall not be eligible for parole.

The People v. Diaz case highlights the importance of due diligence in raising legal objections during trial and reinforces the principle that an unbroken chain of custody can validate drug-related convictions even when there are minor procedural deviations. This decision strikes a balance between upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring effective law enforcement in drug cases.

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. Allan Diaz y Roxas, G.R. No. 197818, February 25, 2015