In illegal drug cases, maintaining the integrity of evidence from seizure to court presentation is paramount. The Supreme Court in People v. Romel Martin y Peña overturned the lower courts’ guilty verdict, acquitting Romel Martin due to significant gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. This decision underscores the necessity of strict adherence to procedural safeguards outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and the integrity of evidence is beyond reproach. The ruling reinforces the principle that failure to follow these procedures can lead to the inadmissibility of evidence and the acquittal of the accused, highlighting the critical role of due process in drug-related prosecutions.

When Conflicting Accounts Fracture the Chain: Did Due Process Prevail?

Romel Martin was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, for allegedly selling methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “shabu.” According to the prosecution, a buy-bust operation was conducted based on an anonymous tip about drug trading in Barangay 2, Tanauan City. Police officers claimed to have witnessed Martin selling a sachet of shabu to Bernardo Malocloc. Subsequently, Martin was arrested, and during a search, police allegedly found two more sachets of shabu and marked money in his possession. The defense, however, presented a different narrative, with Martin denying the accusations and claiming that he was arrested at his residence without any illegal items found on him.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Martin guilty, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Both courts gave weight to the testimonies of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. However, the Supreme Court, upon review, found substantial discrepancies and procedural lapses that cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence presented against Martin.

The critical issue revolved around whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Martin’s conviction, considering the alleged violations of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which outlines the chain of custody requirements for drug-related evidence. The Supreme Court highlighted that in drug cases, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. This requirement is crucial because the dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the crime.

One of the most significant issues identified by the Supreme Court was the conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the handling of the seized items. PO1 Suriaga testified that after marking the plastic sachets containing shabu, he transferred possession to PO2 Magpantay. However, PO2 Magpantay made no mention of receiving the items from PO1 Suriaga in his testimony. This contradiction created a break in the first link of the chain of custody.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proper marking, stating that “marking means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized.” The marking should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to prevent any doubts about the authenticity of the evidence.

“Marking” of the seized items, to truly ensure that they were the same items that enter the chain and were eventually the ones offered in evidence, should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator; and (2) immediately upon confiscation – in order to protect innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches and to shield the apprehending officers as well from harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft.

The conflicting testimonies of the police officers raised questions about whether the seized items were properly handled and accounted for from the moment of confiscation.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to present PO2 Jaime, who allegedly served as the custodian of the confiscated items for processing and transmittal to the crime laboratory. The absence of PO2 Jaime’s testimony created another gap in the chain of custody, as it was unclear how the items were stored and handled before reaching the crime laboratory. The court emphasized that the failure to identify the police investigator to whom the seized items were handed over constituted a gap in the second link—the turnover of the seized shabu by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer.

The testimony of the Forensic Chemist, Police Chief Inspector Donna Villa Huelgas, also did not clarify the chain of custody. The court noted that it was unclear who received the confiscated shabu when it was transmitted to the crime laboratory and who possessed the seized items after the chemical tests were conducted. This lack of clarity raised concerns about the integrity of the evidence and whether it had been tampered with or altered in any way. The Court reiterates that,

the rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court.

In addition to the breaks in the chain of custody, the Supreme Court also found that there was non-compliance with the witness requirements during the inventory of the seized items. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the presence of three witnesses during the physical inventory: an elected public official, a representative from the DOJ, and a representative from the media. In this case, only Barangay Captain Lourdes R. Ramirez was present to witness the inventory. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground to explain the absence of the other two required witnesses.

Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], 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 [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.

The Supreme Court stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the drugs if the prosecution can prove justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. However, in this case, the prosecution failed to provide any justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses, which constituted a substantial gap in the chain of custody.

The Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence in criminal cases requires the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence due to the significant gaps and lapses in the chain of custody and the non-compliance with the witness requirements during the inventory of the seized items.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court granted Martin’s appeal and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court acquitted Martin due to reasonable doubt, emphasizing that the prosecution had failed to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Romel Martin’s conviction for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, given the alleged violations of the chain of custody requirements for drug-related evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs to ensure their identity and integrity from the moment of confiscation to their presentation in court. This prevents any doubts about switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
Why was the chain of custody considered broken in this case?	The chain of custody was considered broken due to conflicting testimonies of the police officers regarding the handling of the seized items, the failure to present a key witness who allegedly served as the custodian of the items, and the unclear testimony regarding the transfer of the items to the crime laboratory.
What are the witness requirements during the inventory of seized drugs?	Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the presence of three witnesses during the physical inventory of seized items: an elected public official, a representative from the DOJ, and a representative from the media. The prosecution failed to include two out of the three witnesses.
What happens if there is non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the prosecution proves justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. In this case, the prosecution failed to justify the absence of the required witnesses.
What is the significance of marking the seized items immediately upon confiscation?	Immediate marking of seized items is crucial to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain of custody and are eventually offered in evidence. It also protects innocent persons from dubious searches and shields officers from harassment suits.
What was the final outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court granted Martin’s appeal and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Martin was acquitted due to reasonable doubt, as the prosecution failed to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu.
What is the effect of acquittal based on a broken chain of custody?	An acquittal based on a broken chain of custody means that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as the integrity and identity of the evidence were compromised. This underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in R.A. No. 9165. The meticulous preservation of the chain of custody and compliance with witness requirements are essential to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected and that justice is served fairly. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that even minor deviations can be fatal to the prosecution’s case, emphasizing the need for law enforcement to exercise utmost diligence in handling drug-related evidence.

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, VS. ROMEL MARTIN Y PEÑA, G.R. No. 233750, June 10, 2019