In the Philippines, convictions for drug offenses require strict adherence to the chain of custody rule. A recent Supreme Court decision, People v. Bernardo Rendon y Pascua, highlights the critical importance of having mandatory witnesses present during the seizure and inventory of illegal drugs. The Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to justify the absence of required witnesses, emphasizing that their presence is crucial to safeguard against evidence planting and ensure the integrity of the process. This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement of the need to meticulously follow protocol to secure convictions and uphold justice.

Drug Busts and Missing Witnesses: How Rendon Beat the Rap

Bernardo Rendon was apprehended during a buy-bust operation for allegedly selling 0.01 gram of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride). He was subsequently convicted by the Regional Trial Court, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, focusing on a critical flaw in the prosecution’s case: the inadequate compliance with the chain of custody rule under Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The chain of custody rule, as outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 and amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640), mandates specific procedures for handling seized drugs to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items. A key element of this procedure is the requirement that the physical inventory and photography of the seized items must be conducted in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media. These witnesses are required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. This requirement is intended to provide a layer of transparency and accountability, minimizing the risk of evidence tampering or planting.

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of the three-witness rule to guarantee against unlawful evidence planting and prevent frame-ups. As the Court stated in People v. Ocampo:

The presence of the three witnesses is required to guarantee against the unlawful planting of evidence and of frame-up. The three witnesses are necessary to remove any taint of irregularity or illegitimacy in the conduct of the apprehension of the accused in the buy-bust operation.

In Rendon’s case, the prosecution admitted that only a media representative was present during the inventory. The police offered a justification for the absence of the other required witnesses, stating that they were pressed for time and needed to submit the seized substance for laboratory examination and inquest proceedings. However, the Court found this explanation insufficient, pointing out that the buy-bust team had ample time to secure the presence of the required witnesses, as they had been planning the operation since the morning of that day.

The Court also noted inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimonies and affidavits regarding the inventory process. In their joint affidavit, the officers stated that the inventory was conducted in the presence of their team leader, investigator, and the suspect, but made no mention of the required witnesses. Moreover, the assigned investigator’s affidavit lacked any explanation for the absence of the required witnesses, merely stating that proper procedural steps were undertaken.

The Supreme Court has established that the prosecution bears the burden of proving compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, including the mandatory presence of the three witnesses. Failure to comply with this procedure must be adequately explained and proven as a fact under the rules. This includes providing justifiable reasons for the absence of any of the three witnesses in the sworn statements or affidavits of the apprehending officers. Section 1 (A. 1.10) of the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations emphasizes this requirement:

A. 1.10. Any justification or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other than the PDEA pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 shall be presented.

What constitutes justifiable reasons for the absence of any of the three witnesses? The Supreme Court in People v. Sipin provided some examples:

(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.

Because the prosecution failed to provide sufficient justification for the absence of the required witnesses and failed to demonstrate strict compliance with the chain of custody rule, the Supreme Court acquitted Rendon based on reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the procedural safeguards outlined in RA 9165 are not mere technicalities but essential requirements to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of the evidence presented in court.

The Rendon case reaffirms the importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule, especially the three-witness requirement. This rule is not merely a procedural formality, but a critical safeguard against potential abuse and a guarantee of due process for the accused. The ruling serves as a warning to law enforcement agencies that failure to comply with these requirements can result in the dismissal of drug cases and the acquittal of defendants, even in the face of seemingly strong evidence. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting individual liberties, even in the context of the government’s campaign against illegal drugs.

FAQs

What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the legally mandated procedures for handling evidence to ensure its integrity and prevent tampering. It requires documenting the movement and custody of evidence from the time of seizure until its presentation in court.
What is the three-witness rule in drug cases?	The three-witness rule mandates that the physical inventory and photography of seized drugs must be conducted in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media. These witnesses must sign the inventory.
Why is the presence of these three witnesses important?	Their presence serves as a safeguard against evidence planting, tampering, or any other irregularities that could compromise the integrity of the seized drugs. It ensures transparency and accountability in the handling of evidence.
What happens if the three-witness rule is not followed?	Failure to comply with the three-witness rule can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence and may lead to the acquittal of the accused, as seen in the Rendon case. The prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for the absence of any witness.
What justification did the police give for not having all three witnesses present?	The police claimed they lacked time to wait for the other witnesses, as they needed to submit the seized substance for laboratory examination and inquest proceedings. However, the Court deemed this insufficient.
Why did the Supreme Court acquit Bernardo Rendon?	The Supreme Court acquitted Rendon due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the three-witness rule and provide a sufficient justification for the absence of the required witnesses during the inventory of the seized drugs.
What is the significance of the Rendon case?	The Rendon case emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases and serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to comply with the chain of custody rule to ensure convictions.
How has RA 9165 been amended regarding the chain of custody rule?	RA 10640 amended RA 9165 by clarifying the roles of the witnesses, but it maintained the core requirement of their presence during the inventory and photography of seized drugs.
What constitutes a valid justification for not having all three witnesses?	Justifiable reasons include remote arrest locations, safety threats, involvement of elected officials in the crime, futile efforts to secure witnesses despite facing arbitrary detention charges, and time constraints due to urgent anti-drug operations.

The People v. Bernardo Rendon y Pascua decision underscores the importance of meticulous adherence to legal procedure in drug-related cases. Law enforcement must ensure full compliance with the chain of custody rule, particularly the three-witness requirement, to preserve the integrity of evidence and safeguard the rights of the accused.

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. Rendon, G.R. No. 227873, November 14, 2018