In People v. Jerry Dagdag, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere to the mandatory chain of custody rule under Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is crucial to protect the integrity of seized drugs and safeguard the rights of the accused. This decision underscores the importance of meticulously following the prescribed procedures in drug cases to ensure that justice is served and the accused’s constitutional rights are protected.

The Tainted Truth: When Drug Evidence Falls Short of Legal Scrutiny

Jerry Dagdag was apprehended and charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation led to Dagdag’s arrest, where he purportedly sold and possessed methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. However, the Supreme Court found significant lapses in the handling of the evidence, particularly concerning the chain of custody, which led to Dagdag’s acquittal. The central legal question revolved around whether the prosecution adequately proved Dagdag’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the procedural lapses in handling the seized drugs.

In cases involving violations of RA 9165, proving the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, is paramount. This means establishing that the substance seized from the accused is, in fact, a prohibited drug. The chain of custody rule ensures that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs are preserved from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court. This entails a documented and authorized movement of the seized drugs, from the time of confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, safekeeping, and presentation in court for destruction. Any break in this chain raises doubts about whether the substance presented in court is the same one confiscated from the accused.

Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines specific procedures that law enforcement officers must follow to maintain the integrity of seized drugs. This section mandates that the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation. Furthermore, this inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of the accused or their representative or counsel, an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). These witnesses are required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. This requirement aims to provide a layer of transparency and accountability to prevent the planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug, safeguarding the accused’s rights.

In Dagdag’s case, the Supreme Court found that the buy-bust operation was conducted in complete derogation of Section 21 of RA 9165. The prosecution failed to present any evidence showing that an inventory of the seized drugs was conducted by the police. Moreover, there was a lack of photographs, and representatives of the accused or the DOJ were not present during the inventory process. The lack of signatures from Dagdag, his counsel, or any representative from the media or the DOJ on the inventory receipt further highlighted the procedural lapses. These omissions raised serious doubts about the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, undermining the prosecution’s case.

The testimony of PO1 Christopher Millanes, the police officer who allegedly conducted the buy-bust operation, revealed further irregularities. Although PO1 Millanes claimed to have marked the seized plastic sachets of shabu at the scene, the markings were irregular because the time and place of the marking were not indicated. PO1 Millanes also admitted that no certificate of inventory was prepared by the police, and no pictures were taken during the supposed buy-bust operation because the apprehending team failed to bring a camera. These inconsistencies and omissions further eroded the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence.

Furthermore, PO1 Millanes testified that upon reaching the police station, an inventory of the evidence allegedly seized was not conducted, and no witnesses were present. The police merely prepared the necessary documents for the crime laboratory, and the assigned investigator did not even closely inspect the allegedly recovered specimens. This failure to follow proper procedures demonstrated a lack of diligence on the part of the police officers, which ultimately prejudiced Dagdag’s rights.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the inventory is mandatory. Their presence serves an essential purpose: to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. The Court criticized the Court of Appeals’ assessment that the deviations from Section 21 of RA 9165 were mere “minor lapses,” calling such an assessment irresponsible and reprehensible. The Court further stated that the practice of police operatives not bringing the three witnesses to the intended place of arrest defeats the purpose of the law in preventing or insulating against the planting of drugs.

Moreover, the Court referenced the Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Manual (PNPDEM), which outlines specific procedures for conducting buy-bust operations. These procedures include recording the time of jump-off in the unit’s logbook, ensuring alertness and security, coordinating with the nearest PNP territorial units, providing area security and dragnet or pursuit operation, using necessary and reasonable force only in case of suspect’s resistance, and preparing a detailed receipt of the confiscated evidence for issuance to the suspect. The seizing officer and the evidence custodian must mark the evidence with their initials and indicate the date, time, and place the evidence was confiscated/seized. Photographs of the evidence must be taken during the inventory process, especially during weighing, and the registered weight of the evidence on the scale must be focused by the camera.

The Supreme Court held that it would not presume to set an a priori basis what detailed acts police authorities might credibly undertake and carry out in their entrapment operations. However, given the police operational procedures and the fact that buy-bust is a planned operation, it strains credulity why the buy-bust team could not have ensured the presence of the required witnesses pursuant to Section 21 or at the very least marked, photographed, and inventoried the seized items according to the procedures in their own operations manual. These failures further undermined the prosecution’s case and raised doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

The Court reiterated that the starting point of every criminal prosecution is the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent. This presumption is overturned only when the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof in criminal cases that it has proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution always has the burden of proving compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21. The accused need not present a single piece of evidence in their defense if the State has not discharged its onus; they can simply rely on their right to be presumed innocent.

The Supreme Court stressed that police officers must always be advised to exert earnest efforts in catching drug pushers within the bounds of the law. Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media, the DOJ, and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, “planting,” or contamination of the evidence again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti. Thus, this 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.

The Court acknowledged that Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 provides that “noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.” However, for this provision to be effective, the prosecution must first recognize any lapses on the part of the police officers and be able to justify the same. In Dagdag’s case, the prosecution neither recognized nor tried to justify its deviations from the procedure contained in Section 21, RA 9165.

The Supreme Court sternly reminded the trial and appellate courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying and deciding drug cases and directed the Philippine National Police to conduct an investigation on this incident and other similar cases. The Court also exhorted the prosecutors to diligently discharge their onus to prove compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, and its IRR, which is fundamental in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved Dagdag’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the procedural lapses in handling the seized drugs, particularly the failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule ensures that the integrity and identity of seized drugs are preserved from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court. It involves documented and authorized movement of the seized drugs, from confiscation to laboratory analysis, safekeeping, and presentation in court.
What does Section 21 of RA 9165 require?	Section 21 requires that seized drugs be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative. These witnesses must sign the inventory and receive a copy.
Why are the witnesses required to be present during the inventory?	The presence of witnesses is required to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. It provides a layer of transparency and accountability to prevent abuse.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	If the police fail to comply with Section 21 without justifiable grounds, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti may be compromised, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Jerry Dagdag due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, compromising the integrity of the evidence.
What is the significance of the presumption of innocence?	The presumption of innocence is a fundamental constitutional right, and it means that the accused is presumed innocent until the prosecution proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution.
What is the role of the Philippine National Police in drug cases?	The Philippine National Police is responsible for conducting buy-bust operations and ensuring compliance with the procedures outlined in RA 9165. The PNP must conduct investigations on violations of Section 21 of RA 9165 and other violations of the law committed by the buy-bust team, as well as other similar incidents.
What should prosecutors do in drug cases?	Prosecutors must diligently discharge their onus to prove compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, and its IRR, which is fundamental in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Jerry Dagdag serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding due process and protecting the rights of the accused in drug cases. Law enforcement officers must strictly adhere to the procedures outlined in RA 9165 to ensure the integrity of evidence and prevent wrongful convictions. Failure to do so can have grave consequences, leading to the acquittal of guilty individuals and undermining 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. Dagdag, G.R. No. 225503, June 26, 2019