In People v. Roger Rodriguez, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, casting doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence. This ruling underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, ensuring the rights of the accused are protected and the integrity of evidence is maintained throughout drug-related cases. The absence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs, coupled with an unjustifiable delay in conducting the inventory, proved fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Drug Busts Under Scrutiny: When Procedural Lapses Lead to Acquittal

The case stemmed from two Informations filed against Roger Rodriguez, charging him with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. According to the prosecution, a buy-bust operation was conducted based on information received about Rodriguez’s involvement in drug sales. During the operation, PO2 Forastero acted as the poseur-buyer and allegedly purchased a sachet of shabu from Rodriguez. Subsequently, Rodriguez was arrested, and two additional sachets of shabu were seized from him.

However, critical procedural lapses occurred following Rodriguez’s arrest. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) outline a strict chain of custody procedure that must be followed to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs. This procedure includes the immediate physical inventory and photographing of the seized items in the presence of the accused, or their representative, and representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These witnesses are required to sign the inventory, and each is to be given a copy.

In this case, the inventory of the seized shabu was not conducted immediately after the seizure but was instead performed at the police station. The arresting officer’s explanation for this delay—that the inventory form was in their office computer—was deemed unacceptable by the Court. Furthermore, the physical inventory and signing of the certificate of inventory were not attended by any representative of the media, the DOJ, or an elected official. The only witness present was a local government employee, Ely Diang, whose presence was deemed insufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 21.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the enumeration of witnesses in Section 21 is exclusive and that the presence of these personalities is not a mere formality. The Court has previously stated that the insulating presence of these witnesses serves to prevent any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity in the apprehension and incrimination proceedings, thus preserving the integrity and credibility of the seized evidence. In the case of People v. Mendoza, the Court stated:

The consequences of the failure of the arresting lawmen to comply with the requirements of Section 21(1), supra, were dire as far as the Prosecution was concerned. Without 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 sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, “planting” or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of R.A. 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 sachets of shabu that were evidenced herein of the corpus delicti, and, thus, adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.

Building on this principle, the Court found that the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable ground for noncompliance with Section 21. The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for noncompliance, and mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are not acceptable. As the Court emphasized in People v. Umipang, the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed by the apprehending officers in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law.

The failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements raises serious doubts about the integrity of the seized drugs. The chain of custody, in legal terms, refers to the “duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs at each stage, from the moment of confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until presented to the court.” As outlined in Sec. 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, this is the procedure:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

Given these procedural lapses, the Supreme Court acquitted Rodriguez, holding that the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of the crimes charged, thus creating a reasonable doubt on his criminal liability. This decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases, underscoring the need for law enforcement officers to meticulously follow the procedures outlined in R.A. No. 9165 to ensure the integrity of evidence and protect the rights of the accused.

The court has previously made note of mandatory policies that need to be enforced to avoid poorly built drug-related cases.

1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21(1) of R. A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.

2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.

3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause.

4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, to ensure their integrity and evidentiary value. The Court looked into whether the procedural lapses affected the admissibility of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs at each stage, from the moment of confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until presented to the court. It aims to ensure that the integrity and identity of the evidence are preserved throughout the legal process.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, or their representative, and representatives from the media, the DOJ, and an elected public official. These witnesses are required to sign the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Failure to comply with Section 21 may render the seized evidence inadmissible in court, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. However, noncompliance may be excused if there is a justifiable ground for the failure and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
What is considered a justifiable ground for noncompliance?	A justifiable ground for noncompliance requires more than mere statements of unavailability. The prosecution must demonstrate that earnest efforts were made to contact the required witnesses, and the reasons for their absence must be adequately explained.
Who bears the burden of proving compliance with Section 21?	The prosecution bears the burden of proving compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. This includes demonstrating that the required procedures were followed or, if not, that there was a justifiable reason for the noncompliance.
Why is the presence of media and DOJ representatives important?	The presence of media and DOJ representatives serves as an insulating mechanism to prevent any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity in the apprehension and incrimination proceedings. Their presence helps to ensure the integrity and credibility of the seized evidence.
What was the result of the appeal in this case?	The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and acquitted Roger Rodriguez of the crimes charged. The acquittal was based on the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody and to provide a justifiable reason for noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the stringent requirements surrounding drug-related cases and the importance of adhering to proper procedures to ensure fair trials and protect individual rights. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the necessity for law enforcement to meticulously follow the chain of custody rule, and for prosecutors to diligently demonstrate compliance with these requirements in court.

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, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROGER RODRIGUEZ Y MARTINEZ, ALIAS “ROGER,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 238516, February 27, 2019