The Supreme Court acquitted Jesus Aparente, emphasizing that when drug amounts are extremely small, strict adherence to chain of custody rules is essential. This decision underscores the importance of meticulously following procedures to maintain the integrity and evidentiary value of seized narcotics, especially in cases involving minimal quantities.

Sachet Inspection Under Streetlight: Was it Probable Cause for an Arrest?

This case revolves around the arrest of Jesus Aparente for allegedly possessing 0.01 gram of shabu. The arresting officers testified that they saw Aparente receiving a sachet from another person and inspecting it under a streetlight. This observation led to Aparente’s arrest and the seizure of the sachet, which was later confirmed to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride. The central legal question is whether the circumstances of the arrest and the handling of the seized evidence complied with constitutional and statutory requirements.

The Court addressed the validity of Aparente’s warrantless arrest, referencing Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures:

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

While warrantless searches are generally prohibited, jurisprudence recognizes exceptions, including searches incidental to lawful arrests. The Court acknowledged the principle that a warrantless arrest should precede a search but clarified that a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest could precede it if probable cause exists at the search’s outset. In Aparente’s case, the officers’ observation of the sachet exchange and inspection, coupled with the flight of the individuals, established probable cause justifying the search and subsequent arrest.

However, the Court’s decision hinged on the handling of the seized drugs, particularly Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which mandates a strict chain of custody for seized narcotics:

Section 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 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 arid/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[.]

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 further detail these requirements, emphasizing the need for immediate inventory and photographing at the site of seizure or the nearest police station. Non-compliance is permitted only under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

In this case, the marking of the seized drugs was not done by the apprehending team immediately after seizure. Instead, it was performed by an investigating officer at the police station. The prosecution did not provide a justifiable reason for this deviation from the prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court emphasized that when minuscule amounts of drugs are involved, trial courts should require a more exacting compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. This heightened scrutiny is necessary to prevent doubts about the origin and integrity of the seized narcotics.

The failure of the apprehending team to properly mark the seized drugs immediately after confiscation raised concerns about the integrity of the chain of custody. The Court found that this lapse, coupled with the prosecution’s failure to justify the deviation, created a reasonable doubt regarding the evidence’s reliability. As a result, the Court acquitted Aparente, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in drug cases, particularly when dealing with small quantities of narcotics. This case reinforces the necessity for law enforcement to adhere strictly to the protocols outlined in Republic Act No. 9165 to ensure the admissibility and reliability of drug-related evidence in court.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly maintained, particularly concerning the marking and handling of the evidence as required by Republic Act No. 9165.
Why was the chain of custody so important in this case?	The chain of custody is crucial because it ensures the integrity and identity of the seized drugs from the moment of confiscation to their presentation in court. Any break in the chain could cast doubt on whether the drugs presented as evidence were the same ones seized from the accused.
What is the significance of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165?	Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs, including immediate inventory, photographing, and proper marking in the presence of specific witnesses. These procedures aim to prevent tampering, substitution, or alteration of the evidence.
What was the court’s reasoning for acquitting Jesus Aparente?	The court acquitted Aparente because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, particularly concerning the marking of the seized drugs. The court noted that the drugs were not marked immediately after seizure by the apprehending team, and no justifiable reason was provided for this non-compliance.
What is probable cause, and how does it relate to warrantless arrests?	Probable cause is a reasonable ground for suspicion, supported by circumstances strong enough to justify a prudent person’s belief that an offense has been committed. It allows law enforcement officers to make warrantless arrests when they have reasonable grounds to believe a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
What did the police officers observe that led to Aparente’s arrest?	The police officers observed Aparente receiving a small plastic sachet from another person and inspecting it under a streetlight. When the officers approached, the two men fled, leading to Aparente’s arrest and the seizure of the sachet.
What is the effect of non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165?	Non-compliance with Section 21 can cast doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. While non-compliance may be excused under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must provide a reasonable explanation for the deviation to avoid invalidating the seizure.
What is the meaning of “chain of custody” in drug-related cases?	“Chain of custody” refers to the documented and unbroken transfer of evidence from the time of seizure to its presentation in court. Each person who handles the evidence must document their involvement to ensure its integrity and prevent any questions about its authenticity.

This case highlights the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, particularly when dealing with small quantities of narcotics. Law enforcement officers must meticulously follow the protocols outlined in Republic Act No. 9165 to ensure the admissibility and reliability of drug-related evidence in court, thus upholding the constitutional rights 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: JESUS APARENTE Y VOCALAN v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 205695, September 27, 2017