In People v. Gamboa, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with the procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 is crucial in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, and that unjustified deviations can compromise the fairness and reliability of the case. This decision reinforces the importance of adherence to proper procedures by law enforcement in drug-related cases, safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable evidence.

Missing Witnesses, Mistrial Risk: How Drug Evidence Falters

The case revolves around Manuel Gamboa, accused of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution claimed that a buy-bust operation led to Gamboa’s arrest, during which police officers seized two sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. However, critical procedural lapses in handling the seized drugs raised significant concerns about the integrity of the evidence, leading to a re-evaluation of the conviction.

At the heart of the matter is Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which outlines the protocol for handling seized drugs to maintain their evidentiary integrity. This section mandates that immediately after seizure and confiscation, a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be conducted in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. These witnesses are required to sign the inventory and receive a copy, ensuring transparency and accountability. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent tampering, switching, or planting of evidence, safeguarding the rights of the accused.

In this case, while the seized items were marked immediately upon confiscation at the place of arrest and in the presence of Gamboa and a media representative, there was no elected public official or representative from the DOJ present. The Court emphasized the critical role of these witnesses, quoting People v. Mendoza:

[W]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, 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 RA 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 Supreme Court acknowledged that strict compliance with Section 21 may not always be possible under varied field conditions. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 provide that the inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure. Furthermore, non-compliance with the witness requirements will not invalidate the seizure and custody over the seized items if justifiable grounds exist and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

However, this saving clause is not a blanket exception. The prosecution must convincingly demonstrate that a justifiable ground for non-compliance exists, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The Court stressed that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, stating that the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. This stringent requirement aims to prevent abuse and ensure that the exception is applied only when truly warranted.

In the Gamboa case, the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable explanation for the absence of the required witnesses. While PO2 Nieva testified that his colleagues attempted to contact barangay officials, he admitted that no one arrived to witness the marking of the evidence. The Court found this explanation insufficient, emphasizing that mere statements of unavailability, without actual serious attempts to contact the barangay chairperson or other elected public official, are unacceptable. This lack of effort undermined the prosecution’s claim that the integrity of the evidence had been preserved.

The Court referred to People v. Umipang, emphasizing that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for “[a] sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances – is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse.” This highlights the importance of proactive measures and diligent effort to secure the presence of the required witnesses.

Because the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds or show that special circumstances existed to excuse their transgression, the Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Gamboa had been compromised. This failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody created reasonable doubt, leading to Gamboa’s acquittal.

The Supreme Court reiterated its unwavering support for the government’s campaign against drug addiction but emphasized that this campaign cannot override the constitutional rights of individuals, even those accused of serious crimes. Law enforcement officers must respect individual liberties and adhere to established procedures, ensuring that justice is administered fairly and impartially.

The Court also cautioned prosecutors that they have a positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. They must proactively acknowledge and justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial court. Compliance with this procedure is crucial in determining the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, and therefore, the fate of the accused. The appellate court is obligated to examine the records of the case to ensure complete compliance, and acquit the accused if no justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165, given the absence of required witnesses during the inventory and marking of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution establish an unbroken trail of accountability for seized evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, to ensure its integrity and prevent tampering. This includes documenting each person who handled the evidence, the dates and times it was handled, and the circumstances under which it was stored.
Who are the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165?	Prior to amendment by RA 10640, Section 21 required the presence of three witnesses: a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. RA 10640 amended this to require an elected public official and either a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165?	Non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate the seizure, but the prosecution must provide justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. Failure to do so can result in the evidence being deemed inadmissible and the acquittal of the accused.
What constitutes a justifiable ground for non-compliance?	A justifiable ground is a valid reason why the police could not comply with the witness requirements, such as the unavailability of witnesses despite earnest efforts to secure their presence, or security risks at the place of seizure. The prosecution must prove these grounds as facts.
What is the role of the witnesses in drug cases?	The witnesses’ presence is intended to ensure transparency and prevent planting, tampering, or switching of evidence. They are required to sign the inventory and receive a copy, providing an independent check on the actions of the police.
What is the duty of the prosecutor in drug cases?	The prosecutor has a positive duty to prove compliance with the procedures set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165. This includes acknowledging any deviations from the procedure and justifying them with credible evidence.
What is the effect of RA 10640 on the witness requirements?	RA 10640 reduced the number of required witnesses from three to two, requiring an elected public official and either a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media, aiming to address the difficulty of securing all three witnesses in some areas.

This case underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, highlighting the necessity of protecting individual rights while pursuing legitimate law enforcement objectives. Strict adherence to Section 21 of RA 9165 remains vital in ensuring the integrity of evidence and maintaining public trust in the judicial system.

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 v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018