In drug-related cases, the integrity of evidence is paramount. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody to ensure that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused. In People v. Ternida, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to photograph seized drugs as required by law and its inability to justify this omission, thereby raising significant doubts about the identity and integrity of the evidence. This ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards to protect individual rights and ensure fair trials, especially when dealing with minuscule amounts of alleged drugs.

When a Missing Photo Undermines a Drug Conviction

Rolando Ternida y Munar was charged with the illegal sale of 0.0402 gram of shabu. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation led to Ternida’s arrest, during which he sold a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride to a police officer acting as a poseur-buyer. Ternida denied the allegations, claiming he was merely apprehended while crossing the street and that the evidence was planted. The Regional Trial Court found Ternida guilty, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Ternida appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had proven Ternida’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. A crucial aspect of this determination hinged on establishing an unbroken chain of custody for the seized substance. The concept of the **chain of custody** is vital in drug cases, ensuring the integrity and identity of the seized drugs. This involves meticulously tracking the evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, outlines specific procedures for handling seized drugs, including physical inventory and photographing the drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to these procedures to minimize the possibility of evidence tampering or planting. According to Article II, Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act:

(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[.]

In this case, the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the seized drugs were photographed upon seizure, raising questions about whether the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was indeed seized from the accused. The prosecution’s failure to address this critical lapse was particularly problematic. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that any deviation from the mandated process should not affect the prosecution of the case, citing an outdated precedent. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that compliance with the chain of custody requirements is a matter of substantive law and cannot be disregarded.

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance with chain of custody requirements may not always be possible due to varied field conditions. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act provide:

(a) … Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]

However, to invoke this “saving clause,” the prosecution must demonstrate justifiable grounds for non-compliance and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The Supreme Court in People v. Miranda clarified that:

Tersely put, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 and the IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

The prosecution failed to provide any justification for not photographing the seized drugs. This failure, coupled with the minuscule amount of the alleged drugs, raised serious doubts about their identity and integrity. The Court noted the absence of any evidence supporting Ternida’s claim that the arresting officer had an ulterior motive or that it was implausible for him to engage in illegal transactions with the officer. However, the failure to photograph the drugs, to explain this failure, and to establish that the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved despite the failure were sufficient to reverse Ternida’s conviction based on reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court also reiterated its concern about the focus on small-time drug users and retailers, as expressed in People v. Holgado:

It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial “big fish.” We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and acquitted Rolando Ternida y Munar, citing the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ordered his immediate release from detention, unless he was confined for some other lawful cause.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Rolando Ternida y Munar illegally sold dangerous drugs, considering the lapses in following the chain of custody requirements. The absence of a photograph of the seized drugs was a major point of contention.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented process of tracking seized evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence by accounting for each transfer, storage, and analysis.
What does Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 require?	Section 21 of R.A. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure, physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice, and an elected public official. These individuals must sign the inventory.
Why is photographing seized drugs important?	Photographing the seized drugs immediately upon seizure helps minimize the possibility of evidence tampering or planting. It provides visual documentation of the seized items and their condition at the time of apprehension.
What happens if the police fail to follow the chain of custody requirements?	Failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements can cast doubt on the integrity and identity of the evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused, unless the prosecution can provide justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
What is a ‘saving clause’ in the context of chain of custody?	A ‘saving clause’ refers to the provision in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 that allows for non-compliance with chain of custody requirements under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
What must the prosecution prove to invoke the ‘saving clause’?	To invoke the ‘saving clause,’ the prosecution must demonstrate justifiable reasons for non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved despite the lapses.
What was the significance of the amount of drugs involved in this case?	The minuscule amount of shabu (0.0402 gram) involved in the case, combined with the procedural lapses, raised concerns about the identity and integrity of the evidence. It also highlighted the need for law enforcement to focus on larger drug operations.

The People v. Ternida case underscores the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Law enforcement agencies must meticulously follow the chain of custody requirements to ensure the integrity and admissibility of evidence in drug-related cases. Failure to do so can result in the acquittal of the accused and undermine the fight against illegal drugs.

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. Ternida, G.R. No. 212626, June 03, 2019