In People v. Nader Musor y Acmad, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. This case highlights the critical importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. The decision emphasizes that strict compliance with these procedures is essential to protect individual rights and ensure the integrity of evidence, thus safeguarding against wrongful convictions.

When a Buy-Bust Goes Wrong: How Procedural Lapses Led to an Acquittal

The case began with an information filed against Nader Musor y Acmad (Musor) for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, specifically methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “shabu”. According to the prosecution, a confidential informant tipped off police officers about Musor’s drug activities, leading to a buy-bust operation. PO2 Armand Bautista, posing as a buyer, allegedly purchased two sachets of shabu from Musor using marked money. After the transaction, PO1 Jose Maria Bersola announced the arrest, and the police officers proceeded to the police station. At the police station, they conducted an inventory and marked the seized items in the presence of a barangay official and a media representative.

Musor, on the other hand, claimed he was abducted by the police while on his way to meet a friend. He alleged that he was blindfolded and taken to the police station, where he was later forced to participate in a staged photo opportunity with media personnel. He maintained his innocence, asserting that he was framed by the police. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Musor guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, focusing on the serious procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team.

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision is Section 21 of RA 9165, which outlines the procedure that law enforcement officers must follow to maintain the integrity of seized drugs. This section requires the apprehending team to: (1) immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same; and (2) conduct the physical inventory and photographing in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The purpose of these requirements is to create an “insulating presence” to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug, as emphasized in People v. Tomawis:

The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the 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 subject sachet that were evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.

In this case, the buy-bust team failed to comply with several critical aspects of Section 21. First, none of the required witnesses were present at the time of seizure and apprehension. The witnesses were only called to the police station for the conduct of the inventory. Second, no photographs of the seized drugs were taken at the place of seizure or at the police station. Third, the inventory and marking of the alleged seized items were not done in the presence of accused Musor. The police officer’s justification that the area was dark and crowded was deemed insufficient by the Court, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to the law.

The Supreme Court also addressed the “saving clause” in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which states that noncompliance with the required procedures shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, for this saving clause to apply, the prosecution must first recognize any lapse on the part of the police officers and be able to justify it. In this case, the prosecution failed to acknowledge any lapses and did not provide any justifiable grounds for the deviation from the rules laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence, a constitutionally-protected right. This right places the burden on the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While the prosecution may rely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, this presumption cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, especially when there are affirmative proofs of irregularity. As such, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense due to the multiple unexplained breaches of procedure committed by the buy-bust team. Because of this the accused-appellant Musor’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to prosecutors and law enforcement officers to diligently comply with the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Compliance with these procedures is fundamental to preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. As the Court stated, “the procedure outlined in Section 21 is straightforward and easy to comply with.” The Court further emphasized that any deviation from the prescribed procedure must be recognized and explained by the prosecution. Failure to do so will result in the overturning of the conviction and the affirmation of the accused’s innocence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved Musor’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, considering the buy-bust team’s compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
What is Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedure that law enforcement officers must follow to maintain the integrity of seized drugs, including immediate inventory and photography in the presence of specific witnesses. This aims to prevent planting, contamination, or loss of evidence.
Who are the required witnesses under Section 21?	The required witnesses are the accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.
Why is the presence of these witnesses important?	Their presence provides an “insulating presence” to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. It also helps ensure transparency and accountability in the buy-bust operation.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Failure to comply with Section 21 can raise doubts about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. However, there’s a saving clause.
What is the “saving clause” in the IRR of RA 9165?	The “saving clause” states that noncompliance with Section 21 shall not render the seizure void if the prosecution can justify the noncompliance and prove the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
What must the prosecution do to invoke the “saving clause”?	The prosecution must recognize any lapses on the part of the police officers and provide justifiable grounds for the deviation from the rules laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Musor due to the buy-bust team’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule.
What is the key takeaway from this case?	The key takeaway is that strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is essential in drug cases to protect individual rights and ensure the integrity of evidence, thereby safeguarding against wrongful convictions.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Nader Musor y Acmad serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in RA 9165. This case underscores the necessity for law enforcement to meticulously follow the chain of custody requirements to ensure the integrity of evidence and protect the constitutional rights of the accused. By strictly enforcing these rules, the courts can prevent potential abuses and uphold the principles of justice and fairness in drug-related cases.

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 v. Nader Musor y Acmad, G.R. No. 231843, November 07, 2018