In People v. Maganon, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere to mandatory procedures for preserving the chain of custody of seized drugs. The ruling emphasizes the critical importance of having proper witnesses present during the inventory and photographing of evidence in drug cases. Without strict compliance and justifiable reasons for deviations, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are compromised, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. This decision underscores the necessity for law enforcement to meticulously follow protocol to ensure the admissibility of drug-related evidence in court.

Buy-Bust Gone Wrong: Did Police Lapses Free a Suspected Drug Dealer?

Augusto N. Maganon was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, violations of Republic Act No. 9165, after a buy-bust operation conducted by the Pasig City Police. The prosecution presented evidence that Maganon sold shabu to an undercover officer and was later found in possession of additional sachets of the same substance. However, the defense argued that the police operatives failed to comply with the procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically regarding the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized evidence.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found Maganon guilty, a decision that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Both courts believed the prosecution had successfully established the elements of the crimes and maintained an unbroken chain of custody of the evidence. However, the Supreme Court (SC) reversed these decisions, focusing on the importance of strict adherence to the procedural safeguards stipulated in RA 9165.

The core of the SC’s decision hinged on Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, which outlines the mandatory steps to be taken after the seizure of dangerous drugs. This provision requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation. Furthermore, this must be done in the presence of the accused, or their representative, and certain mandatory witnesses.

As amended by RA 10640, the law requires the presence of two witnesses: an elected public official and either a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. In this case, only Barangay Captain Engracio E. Santiago, an elected public official, was present during the inventory and photographing of the seized items. The prosecution acknowledged the absence of a representative from the DOJ and from the media, attempting to justify their absence through the testimony of PO1 Santos. He claimed his contact in the media had a new number and that the chief of police tried unsuccessfully to contact a DOJ representative.

The Supreme Court found these explanations inadequate. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must provide justifiable reasons for non-compliance with the witness requirements and demonstrate earnest efforts to secure their presence. The Court referenced the case of People v. Lim, noting that it must be alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses was impossible due to reasons such as the remoteness of the arrest location, safety threats, involvement of the officials themselves, or futile attempts to secure their presence within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. The SC ruled that the prosecution failed to demonstrate such earnest efforts.

Specifically, the Court pointed out that the police had sufficient time to secure the necessary witnesses. The decision to conduct the buy-bust operation was made a day before it occurred. The police failed to explain why they did not exert reasonable efforts to secure a new media contact or find another suitable representative. As well, the testimony regarding the attempt to contact a DOJ representative was deemed hearsay since PO1 Santos did not personally witness his chief’s efforts, and the chief himself did not testify.

Moreover, the Court noted the significance of Barangay Captain Santiago being the one who requested the buy-bust operation. This raised concerns about potential bias and the need for independent witnesses to ensure the integrity of the process. As the Court stated in People v. Mendoza:

Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the shabu, the evils of switching, ‘planting’ or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) might again rear 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, and thus adversely affect the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would preserve an unbroken chain of custody.

Because the police operatives relied on a lone witness with a vested interest in the case’s outcome and failed to secure the presence of either a DOJ or media representative without justifiable reasons, the Court concluded that the integrity and credibility of the seized evidence were compromised.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of complying with Section 21 of RA 9165 to ensure the integrity of drug-related evidence. The presence of independent witnesses is crucial to prevent the tampering, switching, or planting of evidence. Failure to comply with these procedures can lead to the acquittal of the accused, regardless of other evidence presented. The ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow the prescribed protocols in drug cases and to exert genuine efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses.

The People v. Maganon case highlights the application of the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. This rule is pivotal to maintaining the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs, ensuring that the evidence presented in court is reliable and untainted. The chain of custody encompasses the process from seizure and confiscation to handling, storage, and presentation in court. It mandates that each person who handled the evidence must be identified and testify, affirming the integrity of the drugs.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Maganon underscores the critical balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights. While the campaign against illegal drugs remains a priority, strict adherence to procedural safeguards is non-negotiable. This ensures that justice is served fairly and that the rights of the accused are not violated in the pursuit of convictions. The case serves as a stark reminder that shortcuts in procedure can undermine the entire legal process, potentially allowing guilty parties to go free.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the police operatives complied with the procedural requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 in handling the seized drugs, particularly concerning the presence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the evidence.
What are the mandatory requirements after the seizure of drugs?	After seizing drugs, the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media.
Who are the required witnesses under RA 10640?	Under RA 10640, the required witnesses are an elected public official and either a representative from the National Prosecution Service or a representative from the media.
What happens if the required witnesses are not present?	If the required witnesses are not present, the prosecution must provide justifiable reasons for their absence and demonstrate earnest efforts to secure their presence.
What constitutes a justifiable reason for the absence of witnesses?	Justifiable reasons include the remoteness of the arrest location, safety threats, involvement of the officials themselves, or futile attempts to secure their presence within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
Why is the presence of independent witnesses important?	The presence of independent witnesses is crucial to prevent the tampering, switching, or planting of evidence and to ensure the integrity of the drug-related evidence.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Augusto N. Maganon, holding that the police operatives failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of RA 9165, particularly regarding the presence of mandatory witnesses, thus compromising the integrity of the seized evidence.
What is the ‘chain of custody’ rule?	The ‘chain of custody’ rule refers to the process by which the seized drugs is handled and must be identified and testify, affirming the integrity of the drugs from seizure and confiscation to handling, storage, and presentation in court.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Maganon serves as a critical reminder of the importance of strictly adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in RA 9165. Law enforcement agencies must prioritize compliance with these rules to ensure the integrity of drug-related evidence and protect the rights of the accused. Failure to do so can have significant consequences, potentially leading to the acquittal of individuals charged with drug offenses.

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. Augusto N. Maganon, G.R. No. 234040, June 26, 2019