In People v. Dela Victoria, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. This means the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised due to unjustified deviations from the prescribed procedure. The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect individual liberties.

Busted Buy-Bust: Did Police Lapses Free a Suspected Drug Dealer?

This case revolves around the arrest and conviction of Pastorlito V. Dela Victoria for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, specifically shabu. The prosecution presented evidence that Dela Victoria sold a sachet of shabu to an undercover police officer during a buy-bust operation. Dela Victoria, however, denied the charges, claiming that the evidence was planted. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Dela Victoria, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, prompting Dela Victoria to appeal to the Supreme Court. At the heart of the appeal was the question of whether the police properly handled the seized drugs, maintaining the chain of custody as required by law.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” This section outlines the procedure law enforcement officers must follow when handling seized drugs to ensure their integrity and evidentiary value. Prior to its amendment by RA 10640, Section 21 required the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation. This must be done in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official, all of whom are required to sign the inventory.

“[W]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media [and] the [DOJ], [and] 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 [RA] 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 acknowledged that strict compliance with Section 21 is not always possible under varied field conditions. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 allow for inventory and photography to be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in cases of warrantless seizure. Non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate the seizure if justifiable grounds exist and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must explain the reasons behind any procedural lapses and demonstrate that the integrity of the evidence was maintained.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the PDEA operatives committed unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule. First, the marking of the confiscated sachet was not done in the presence of Dela Victoria. The officer only marked the sachet upon arrival at the PDEA Office. The Court emphasized that marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, and failure to immediately mark the seized drugs casts doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti. The Court cited People v. Dahil to emphasize the need to mark the seized contraband immediately because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference.

Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.

Second, there was no DOJ representative present during the conduct of the inventory, and no justification was provided for this absence. The absence of a DOJ representative, coupled with the improper marking of the evidence, raised serious concerns about the integrity of the seized drugs. The Court reiterated that the presence of these witnesses and the immediate marking and conduct of physical inventory after seizure and confiscation in full view of the accused and the required witnesses cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality.

The prosecution’s failure to provide justifiable reasons for these deviations led the Court to conclude that there had been an unjustified breach of procedure, compromising the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. Consequently, Dela Victoria’s acquittal was deemed necessary.

The Court emphasized that prosecutors have a positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. They must acknowledge and justify any perceived deviations from the procedure during the trial court proceedings. Compliance with this procedure is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, and ultimately, the liberty of the accused.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the police properly maintained the chain of custody of the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165. The Supreme Court found that they did not, due to several procedural lapses.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the process of documenting and tracking the handling of evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. This ensures the integrity and authenticity of the evidence.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	In drug cases, the identity and integrity of the seized drugs are crucial to proving the crime. A broken chain of custody can create doubt about whether the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Failure to comply with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the prosecution can justify the non-compliance and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What were the specific violations in this case?	The police failed to mark the seized sachet in the presence of the accused and did not have a DOJ representative present during the inventory. They also transported the evidence further away to their headquarters instead of the closest police station or Barangay hall.
What is the role of the prosecutor in these cases?	Prosecutors have a duty to prove compliance with Section 21 and justify any deviations from the procedure during trial. This ensures that the accused’s rights are protected and the integrity of the evidence is maintained.
What is the significance of this Supreme Court decision?	This decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement officers to follow the law and protect the rights of individuals, even those accused of crimes.

The People v. Dela Victoria case underscores the critical importance of strictly adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug cases. Any unjustified deviation from established procedures can compromise the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that law enforcement agencies follow proper procedures in their anti-drug operations.

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, v. PASTORLITO V. DELA VICTORIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 233325, April 16, 2018