In People v. Cartina, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere to the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165, concerning the handling and custody of seized dangerous drugs. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with these procedures is crucial to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. This ruling reinforces the necessity for law enforcement to meticulously follow protocol in drug-related cases to ensure justice and protect individual rights.

From Buy-Bust to Bust: When a Drug Case Falls Apart on Procedure

This case originated from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) targeting Luisito Cartina for alleged drug activities. Following the operation, Cartina, along with Allan Jepez and Nelson Ramos, Jr., were apprehended and charged with violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The central issue revolved around the legality of the appellants’ arrest and the subsequent handling of the seized drugs, particularly whether the procedural requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 were strictly observed by the arresting officers.

The prosecution presented evidence indicating that after a confidential informant identified Cartina, a buy-bust operation was set up. During the operation, Cartina allegedly sold 0.02 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Upon arrest, additional sachets of shabu were found on Cartina. Jepez and Ramos, Jr., who were with Cartina during the operation, attempted to flee but were apprehended and found in possession of small quantities of shabu as well. All the seized items were marked and inventoried at the barangay hall, with only a Barangay Kagawad present as a witness.

Conversely, the defense argued that Jepez and Ramos, Jr. were merely present near Cartina’s location and were apprehended without any overt act indicating their involvement in illegal activities. They claimed they were mauled by MADAC operatives and later presented with plastic sachets of shabu, which they denied owning. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially convicted all the appellants, a decision that was affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA upheld the legality of the warrantless arrest and search, finding that the chain of custody over the seized items was unbroken.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the lower courts, particularly regarding the adherence to Section 21 of RA 9165. The Court acknowledged that while a search and seizure typically require a judicial warrant, exceptions exist, such as in a stop-and-frisk situation. Citing Sanchez v. People, the Court explained that a stop-and-frisk allows a police officer to stop and interrogate a person exhibiting suspicious behavior and pat them down for weapons or contraband. In this case, the Court found that the police had sufficient reason to believe that Jepez and Ramos, Jr. were committing a crime, given their presence with Cartina, their attempt to flee, and their subsequent possession of shabu.

Despite upholding the legality of the stop-and-frisk, the Supreme Court found a critical flaw in the prosecution’s case: the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165. This section outlines the procedures for the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs, requiring that the inventory and photographing of the drugs be done immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure transparency and accountability in the handling of evidence, thereby safeguarding the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

The Court noted that during the trial, MADAC operative Encarnacion admitted that, aside from Kagawad Parrucho, there was no representative from the media or the DOJ present during the inventory of the seized items. Crucially, the prosecution failed to provide any justification for this non-compliance. The Supreme Court has consistently held that while non-compliance with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case, the prosecution must demonstrate justifiable grounds for the deviation from the prescribed procedure. The absence of such justification raises serious doubts about the identity and integrity of the seized items presented as evidence.

The Court quoted Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165:

SECTION 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 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.

Due to the police officers’ failure to provide any excuses or justification for their omission, the Supreme Court emphasized the imperative for the prosecution to establish a justifiable cause for non-compliance with the procedural requirements set by law. Because of this failure, there arose a serious uncertainty regarding the identity of the seized items presented in evidence.

The Court emphasized that without strict adherence to the procedural safeguards prescribed in RA 9165, there is a risk of tampering, substitution, or planting of evidence, which could lead to the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals. In this case, the prosecution’s failure to fully establish the elements of the crimes charged, coupled with the reasonable doubt created by the non-compliance with Section 21, led the Supreme Court to acquit the appellants.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the arresting officers complied with Section 21 of RA 9165, which outlines the procedures for handling seized dangerous drugs to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the items. The Supreme Court focused on the absence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice during the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs.
What is a “buy-bust” operation?	A buy-bust operation is an entrapment technique used by law enforcement, where they pose as buyers of illegal drugs to apprehend drug dealers. It involves a poseur-buyer and back-up officers who arrest the suspect after the illegal transaction occurs.
What is the “chain of custody” rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the chronological documentation of the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence. This ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence throughout the legal proceedings.
What is a “stop and frisk” search?	A “stop and frisk” search allows a police officer to stop a person on the street, interrogate them, and pat them down for weapons or contraband if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. This is an exception to the general rule that a search requires a warrant.
What does Section 21 of RA 9165 require?	Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that immediately after the seizure of illegal drugs, the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These individuals must sign the inventory, and copies must be provided.
What happens if Section 21 is not followed?	Non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the drugs, provided that there are justifiable grounds for the non-compliance, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. However, the prosecution must demonstrate the justifiable grounds for the deviation.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants because the prosecution failed to establish justifiable grounds for not complying with Section 21 of RA 9165. The Court found that this non-compliance raised reasonable doubt about the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, leading to the acquittal.
Why is proper handling of evidence so important?	Proper handling of evidence is crucial to ensure the reliability and integrity of the evidence presented in court. It prevents tampering, substitution, or planting of evidence, which could lead to wrongful convictions.

This case underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. The ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies that compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not merely a technical requirement but a fundamental aspect of ensuring justice and protecting the rights of the accused. Failure to comply with these procedures can create reasonable doubt and lead to the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the other evidence presented.

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. Cartina, G.R. No. 226152, March 13, 2019