In drug-related offenses, the Supreme Court has clarified that the marking of seized items does not always have to occur immediately at the site of arrest. This landmark ruling emphasizes that marking the confiscated items at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with chain of custody rules. This decision ensures convictions are upheld, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are preserved, thereby balancing law enforcement’s practical considerations with the accused’s rights.

Buy-Bust Operations: When is ‘Immediate’ Marking of Evidence Enough?

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Jomar Quilang y Bangayan originates from an incident on March 28, 2011, when Jomar Quilang was apprehended during a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Region 2 Office. Quilang was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” after a plastic sachet containing 0.06 gram of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, was recovered from him. The central legal question revolved around whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly maintained, especially since the marking and inventory of the seized items were not done immediately at the place of the buy-bust operation but at the PDEA Region 2 Office.

Quilang’s defense centered on the claim that the PDEA agents failed to comply with the chain of custody rule, casting doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. He argued that the marking and inventory should have been done immediately at the location of the alleged buy-bust operation. However, the Supreme Court addressed this issue by examining the requirements of the chain of custody rule as it applies to drug-related cases. In cases involving the illegal sale and/or possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, establishing the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty is essential, given that the dangerous drug itself constitutes an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime.

The Court emphasized that to establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody, from the moment the drugs are seized to their presentation in court as evidence. This includes the proper handling, storage, and documentation of the seized items to prevent contamination or tampering. As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. However, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, later adopted into the text of RA 10640, provides flexibility regarding the location where these procedures may be conducted.

Specifically, Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 states that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of seized items may be conducted at the place where the arrest or seizure occurred, at the nearest police station, or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in instances of warrantless seizures such as buy-bust operations. This provision acknowledges the practical challenges law enforcement officers face during drug operations and allows for flexibility in the chain of custody procedure. The Supreme Court has also recognized that “marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.”

This clarification underscores that the failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest does not automatically render them inadmissible in evidence or impair the integrity of the seized drugs. Instead, the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team constitutes sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody, provided that the prosecution can demonstrate a clear and unbroken chain of custody from the point of seizure to the presentation of the evidence in court.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the buy-bust team, comprising PDEA operatives, conducted the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the item seized from Quilang at their office, the PDEA Region 2 Office, in the presence of a public elected official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative. Furthermore, the poseur-buyer, IO1 Benjamin Binwag, Jr., positively identified during trial the item seized from Quilang during the buy-bust operation. Given these circumstances, the Court held that there was sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule, and thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been preserved.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Quilang serves to clarify the acceptable parameters for maintaining the chain of custody in drug-related cases. It underscores that while strict adherence to the procedural requirements is crucial, the law also recognizes the practical realities faced by law enforcement officers in the field. By allowing for the marking and inventory of seized items to be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, the Court strikes a balance between ensuring the integrity of the evidence and facilitating the effective prosecution of drug offenses. This decision reinforces the importance of clear and consistent documentation throughout the chain of custody to preserve the evidentiary value of seized drugs.

This ruling has significant implications for both law enforcement and individuals accused of drug-related crimes. For law enforcement, it provides clear guidelines on how to properly handle and document seized items to ensure their admissibility in court. For the accused, it reinforces the importance of challenging any lapses in the chain of custody to safeguard their rights and ensure a fair trial. The decision also highlights the crucial role of transparency and accountability in drug operations, as evidenced by the requirement that the marking and inventory of seized items be conducted in the presence of public officials and media representatives. By upholding Quilang’s conviction, the Supreme Court reaffirms its commitment to combating drug-related crimes while upholding the principles of due process and the rule of law.

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, given that the marking and inventory were not done immediately at the arrest site. The court clarified that marking at the nearest police station is sufficient.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented process of tracking seized drugs from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court, ensuring the integrity and identity of the evidence. It involves proper handling, storage, and documentation to prevent contamination or tampering.
Does the marking of seized items have to be done immediately at the arrest site?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule. This acknowledges the practical challenges law enforcement faces.
What is the significance of Republic Act No. 9165?	Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, governs drug-related offenses in the Philippines. It outlines the penalties for illegal sale, possession, and use of dangerous drugs.
Who must be present during the marking and inventory of seized items?	The marking and inventory should be conducted in the presence of a public elected official, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and a media representative. This ensures transparency and accountability.
What happens if the chain of custody is not properly maintained?	If the chain of custody is compromised, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs may be questioned. This can lead to the inadmissibility of the evidence and potentially an acquittal of the accused.
What was the court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding Jomar Quilang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The Court held that the chain of custody was sufficiently maintained.
What is a buy-bust operation?	A buy-bust operation is a sting operation where law enforcement officers act as buyers to apprehend individuals engaged in illegal drug transactions. It is a common method used to catch drug dealers in the act.
What is the role of the poseur-buyer in a drug case?	The poseur-buyer is the law enforcement officer who acts as the buyer during a buy-bust operation. Their testimony is crucial in establishing the elements of the crime, such as the identity of the seller and the delivery of the drugs.

The People vs. Jomar Quilang y Bangayan case underscores the importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases while acknowledging the practical challenges faced by law enforcement. The Supreme Court’s clarification that marking seized items at the nearest police station is sufficient provides a balanced approach to ensuring the integrity of evidence and facilitating the effective prosecution of drug offenses. This ruling serves as a guide for law enforcement and a reminder of the importance of due process in the pursuit of justice.

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. Jomar Quilang y Bangayan, G.R. No. 232619, August 29, 2018