In People v. Reynald Espejo y Rizaldo, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to adequately prove an unbroken chain of custody of seized drugs, a critical element in drug-related cases. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is essential to maintain the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. This ruling underscores the importance of adherence to procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the reliability of evidence presented in court, impacting how law enforcement conducts buy-bust operations and handles evidence.

Flouting Protocol: Did a Faulty Drug Bust Undermine Justice?

This case began with Reynald Espejo being apprehended in a buy-bust operation for allegedly selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The police claimed to have recovered a sachet of shabu from Espejo during the operation, along with additional sachets found in his possession. Espejo was subsequently charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Espejo guilty, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, focusing on critical lapses in the handling of evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165, which mandates specific steps for preserving the integrity of seized drugs. The law states that the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure. Moreover, this process must be conducted 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 witnesses are required to sign the inventory and receive a copy. The seized drugs must then be turned over to a forensic laboratory within 24 hours for examination. These requirements are designed to prevent the planting of evidence and ensure transparency throughout the process.

In Espejo’s case, the Court found significant deviations from these mandatory procedures. The required witnesses were not present at the time of Espejo’s arrest and the seizure of the drugs. The inventory and photographing of the seized items were conducted at the police station, and only a media representative was present. Crucially, the arresting officers failed to demonstrate that reasonable efforts were made to contact the other required witnesses. The Court emphasized that the presence of these witnesses is not merely a formality but serves an essential purpose: to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug.

The Supreme Court cited People v. Tomawis to highlight the importance of these witnesses:

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. x x x 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 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 subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.

The Court also emphasized that the prosecution failed to offer any reasonable explanation for its failure to comply strictly with Section 21. The prosecution bears the burden of proving compliance with Section 21 and providing a sufficient explanation in case of non-compliance. The Supreme Court, in People v. Lim, clarified that it must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses was not obtained due to specific reasons, such as the location of the arrest being in a remote area or the safety of the witnesses being threatened. In Espejo’s case, none of these circumstances were present. The buy-bust team could have complied with the requirements, especially since Espejo was alone at home when arrested. The failure to contact the other mandatory witnesses, despite contacting a media representative, further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the saving clause should apply. While the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 allow for deviations from the mandatory requirements of Section 21 in exceptional cases, this requires the existence of justifiable grounds for the departure and the proper preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The prosecution failed to acknowledge any lapses or provide any justification for the buy-bust team’s deviation from the prescribed procedure. This failure compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, leading to Espejo’s acquittal.

The Court also addressed the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. While public officers are generally presumed to act in the regular performance of their duties, this presumption cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The Court held that reliance on the presumption of regularity is unsound when there are affirmative proofs of irregularity, such as the lapses in following Section 21 of RA 9165. The Court stated, “Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent.”

Building on this, the Court also found the elements of illegal possession of drugs were not proven because the integrity of the seized drugs could not be established. The successful prosecution of illegal possession requires proving that the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, such possession was not authorized by law, and the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drugs. Here, the same breaches of procedure in handling the illegal drug also applied to the illegal possession charge. Furthermore, since the initial arrest was deemed illegal, the subsequent search that led to the recovery of additional shabu was also invalid, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

In closing, the Court reminded prosecutors of their duty to prove compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, emphasizing that the procedure outlined is straightforward and easy to comply with. The Court also said that if deviations are observed and no justifiable reasons are provided, the conviction must be overturned, and the innocence of the accused affirmed.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165, to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. The Court focused on procedural lapses during the buy-bust operation and subsequent handling of evidence.
What is the significance of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the mandatory procedures that law enforcement officers must follow when handling seized drugs. It ensures that the integrity and identity of the evidence are preserved from the moment of seizure until its presentation in court, preventing tampering or planting of evidence.
What are the roles of the required witnesses under Section 21?	The presence of representatives from the media, the DOJ, and an elected public official is crucial during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs. These witnesses serve as safeguards against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the evidence, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	If the police fail to strictly comply with Section 21, the prosecution must provide a justifiable explanation for the non-compliance. If no reasonable explanation is given and the integrity of the evidence is compromised, the accused may be acquitted due to reasonable doubt.
What is the “saving clause” in relation to Section 21?	The “saving clause” allows for deviations from the mandatory requirements of Section 21 in exceptional cases, provided that there are justifiable grounds for the departure and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution bears the burden of proving these conditions.
What is the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties?	The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes public officers act in the regular performance of their duties. However, this presumption cannot override the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
What does “fruit of the poisonous tree” mean in this context?	The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine states that evidence derived from an illegal search or seizure is inadmissible in court. In this case, because the initial arrest was deemed illegal, the subsequent search and seizure of additional drugs were also invalid.
Why was Reynald Espejo acquitted in this case?	Reynald Espejo was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs due to multiple unexplained breaches of procedure by the buy-bust team. The Court found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were compromised.

This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. By emphasizing the necessity of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody and providing justifiable explanations for any deviations, the Supreme Court reinforces the protection of individual rights and the integrity of the justice system. The case highlights the need for law enforcement to prioritize compliance with established protocols to ensure fair and just outcomes in drug prosecutions.

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. REYNALD ESPEJO Y RIZALDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 240914, March 18, 2019