In a ruling that underscores the importance of adhering to stringent procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, the Supreme Court acquitted Janet Peromingan y Geroche, who was initially convicted for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Court found that the police officers’ failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, particularly regarding the chain of custody of the seized substance, raised reasonable doubt about the authenticity and integrity of the evidence presented against her. This decision reinforces the constitutional right to be presumed innocent and highlights the necessity for law enforcement to meticulously follow legal protocols to ensure fair trials and just outcomes.

Broken Chains: How Procedural Lapses Led to an Acquittal in a Drug Case

The case of People of the Philippines v. Janet Peromingan y Geroche began with an alleged buy-bust operation conducted on July 1, 2008, in Manila. Acting on an anonymous tip, police officers apprehended Peromingan for supposedly selling a sachet of shabu, a prohibited drug. The prosecution presented SPO3 Rolando Del Rosario as the primary witness, who testified about the events leading to Peromingan’s arrest. However, critical gaps in the handling of the seized evidence soon became apparent, raising serious questions about the integrity of the prosecution’s case. The core legal question was whether the procedural lapses in maintaining the chain of custody of the seized drug compromised the evidence and warranted an acquittal.

In prosecutions for the violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the State must prove the elements of the offense of sale of dangerous drugs, which constitute the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. The corpus delicti refers to the fact that a crime was actually committed. In cases involving the violation of laws prohibiting the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drugs themselves are the corpus delicti. Consequently, the State must present the seized drugs, along with proof that there were no substantial gaps in the chain of custody thereof as to raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, explicitly outlines the procedures that law enforcement officers must follow when handling confiscated drugs. These safeguards are designed to prevent tampering, substitution, or any other form of compromise that could affect the integrity of the evidence.

Sec. 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

In this case, the Court found several critical deviations from these mandatory procedures. SPO3 Del Rosario admitted that the police officers did not coordinate with any media representative, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, or elected official during the physical inventory of the seized drug. Moreover, he failed to establish that the marking and inventory were conducted in the presence of Peromingan or her representative. The absence of photographic documentation further compounded these procedural lapses. The Supreme Court has consistently held that strict adherence to these procedures is essential to maintain the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the chain of custody, which refers to the duly recorded authorized movement and custody of the seized drugs from the time of their seizure to their presentation in court as evidence. This process ensures that the substance presented in court is the same substance that was confiscated from the accused. The documentation should include the identity and signature of each person who handled the evidence, the dates and times of transfer, and the ultimate disposition of the evidence. The absence of proper documentation and adherence to prescribed procedures raises serious doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

The Court noted that the “TURN OVER RECEIPT/INVENTORY OF SEIZED ITEMS” allegedly prepared by SPO1 Antonio Marcos was unsigned, casting further doubt on the proper custody and handling of the drug. The inventory was dated June 28, 2008, predating Peromingan’s apprehension on July 1, 2008, adding another layer of suspicion to the evidence presented by the prosecution.

The RTC and CA relied heavily on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers. However, the Supreme Court cautioned against an unquestioning reliance on this presumption, especially when there are patent indications of lapses on the part of the officers. The presumption of regularity cannot override the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. When the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to overcome this presumption of innocence, the accused must be acquitted.

The Court contrasted this approach with cases where the presumption of regularity has been upheld, noting that such instances typically involve meticulous documentation, adherence to procedural safeguards, and corroborating evidence that supports the integrity of the police operation. In the absence of such elements, the presumption of regularity cannot be used to validate a flawed investigation or overcome deficiencies in the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court held that the numerous lapses in the chain of custody raised serious doubts about whether the shabu presented as evidence was the same substance allegedly sold by Peromingan. Moreover, the spot report prepared by SPO1 Marcos identified Peromingan as a “User” rather than a “Pusher,” and cited “Vagrancy and Sec. 11” as the specific violations, further undermining the prosecution’s narrative. The Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution failed to establish Peromingan’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered her acquittal.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the procedural lapses in maintaining the chain of custody of the seized drug compromised the evidence and warranted an acquittal, despite the initial conviction based on a buy-bust operation.
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 confiscation to their presentation in court, ensuring the integrity and authenticity of the evidence. It involves recording each person who handled the evidence, the dates and times of transfer, and the condition of the drugs at each stage.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that after seizing drugs, law enforcement must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice. These individuals must sign the inventory, and a copy must be provided to them.
What happens if law enforcement fails to follow these procedures?	Failure to comply with these procedures can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence and may lead to the exclusion of the evidence from trial. The court may acquit the accused if the prosecution’s case relies on compromised evidence.
What is the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties?	The presumption of regularity assumes that law enforcement officers perform their duties in accordance with established procedures and legal requirements. However, this presumption cannot override the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent.
How does the presumption of innocence affect drug cases?	The presumption of innocence requires the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence presented by the prosecution is compromised or insufficient, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, regardless of the presumption of regularity.
Why is it important to have witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs?	Witnesses from the media, DOJ, and local government ensure transparency and prevent tampering or substitution of evidence. Their presence helps to maintain the integrity of the process and protect the rights of the accused.
What was the significance of the spot report in this case?	The spot report, which identified Peromingan as a “User” of drugs rather than a “Pusher,” and cited vagrancy as the violation, contradicted the prosecution’s claim that she was arrested for selling drugs. This discrepancy further weakened the prosecution’s case and supported the acquittal.

This case serves as a critical reminder to law enforcement agencies of the necessity to adhere strictly to the procedural safeguards outlined in R.A. No. 9165. The integrity of drug-related investigations and prosecutions hinges on the meticulous preservation of the chain of custody and the protection of the constitutional rights of the accused. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that any reasonable doubt arising from procedural lapses must be resolved in favor of the accused, ensuring a fair and just legal 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 OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JANET PEROMINGAN Y GEROCHE, G.R. No. 218401, September 24, 2018