The Supreme Court has ruled that the failure of law enforcement to comply with the mandatory witness requirements during the seizure and inventory of illegal drugs compromises the integrity of the evidence and can lead to acquittal. This decision emphasizes strict adherence to procedural safeguards to protect individuals from potential abuses in drug-related arrests. It highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in law enforcement operations, ensuring that the rights of the accused are fully protected during drug-related arrests.

When Evidence Falters: The Vital Witnesses Absent in a Drug Case

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Corazon and Jefferson Nazareno, the accused were convicted of selling illegal drugs. However, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, focusing on a critical procedural lapse by the arresting officers. The key issue was whether the buy-bust team complied with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This law outlines specific procedures for handling seized drugs, particularly the requirement for specific witnesses during the inventory and photography of the seized items.

The law mandates that after seizing illegal drugs, law enforcement must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items immediately. This must be done in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected local official. These witnesses are crucial to ensure transparency and prevent the planting of evidence, safeguarding the rights of the accused. The absence of these witnesses can cast doubt on the integrity of the entire operation.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to Section 21 of RA 9165, highlighting the law’s specific requirements for handling drug-related evidence. The provision states:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(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.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 further elaborate on this requirement, emphasizing the need for these witnesses and the conditions under which non-compliance may be excused:

Section 21. (a) The apprehending officer/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: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; 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.

In this case, the buy-bust team failed to secure the presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ during the inventory and photography of the seized drugs. The Court noted that the prosecution did not acknowledge or offer any explanation for this absence. This failure to comply with the witness requirement was a critical factor in the Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused.

The Court referenced People vs. Lim, stressing the importance of the presence of three insulating witnesses. When these witnesses are absent, the prosecution must explain why and demonstrate genuine efforts to secure their attendance. The absence of these witnesses at the time of arrest or drug seizure raises concerns about potential evidence planting. In the absence of any explanation, the saving clause under Section 21 (a) of RA 9165 does not apply.

The prosecution’s reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions was insufficient to overcome the clear violation of procedural safeguards. The Court clarified that this presumption is disputable and cannot substitute for actual compliance with the law, particularly when preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases. The absence of the required witnesses, without a valid justification, cast significant doubt on the integrity of the evidence.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the presence of insulating witnesses during the inventory is mandatory and serves a critical purpose. Their absence raises serious doubts about the integrity of the corpus delicti, which is the body of the crime. The corpus delicti is the actual substance of the crime. For drug cases, this refers to the illegal drug itself, and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court acknowledged that while warrantless arrests can be valid under certain circumstances, such as during a buy-bust operation, strict adherence to procedural safeguards is still required. The failure to comply with these safeguards can undermine the entire case, leading to the acquittal of the accused. An arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require a warrant because it is considered a valid warrantless arrest.

In this instance, while the arrest itself was deemed valid, the subsequent handling of the evidence did not meet the legal standards set forth in RA 9165. This deficiency was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision. The accused were initially found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the trial court. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the appellate court decision.

Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and acquitted Corazon and Jefferson Nazareno. The Court also directed the immediate release of the accused from custody unless they were being held for any other lawful cause. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that law enforcement agencies comply with the prescribed procedures in drug cases. Cases like this show the importance of proper legal counsel.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the buy-bust team complied with Section 21 of RA 9165, requiring specific witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized drugs. The absence of these witnesses raised questions about the integrity of the evidence.
What is the significance of the three-witness rule?	The three-witness rule mandates that a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and an elected local official must be present during the inventory and photography of seized drugs. This ensures transparency and prevents evidence planting.
What happens if the three-witness rule is not followed?	If the three-witness rule is not followed, the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for the absence of the witnesses and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Failure to do so can lead to the inadmissibility of the evidence and acquittal of the accused.
What is the corpus delicti in drug cases?	The corpus delicti in drug cases refers to the body of the crime, specifically the illegal drug itself. The prosecution must establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court as evidence.
Can the presumption of regularity replace compliance with RA 9165?	No, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot substitute for actual compliance with the requirements of RA 9165. It is a disputable presumption that can be overturned by evidence to the contrary.
What is a buy-bust operation?	A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment where law enforcement agents pose as buyers to apprehend individuals engaged in illegal drug activities. While generally considered a valid method, it must be carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards.
Why was the accused acquitted in this case?	The accused were acquitted because the prosecution failed to comply with the witness requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 and did not provide a justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses. This failure cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence.
What does this case tell us about drug-related arrests?	This case underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related arrests. Law enforcement agencies must comply with the requirements of RA 9165 to ensure the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Corazon and Jefferson Nazareno highlights the critical role of procedural safeguards in drug cases. The mandatory presence of insulating witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized drugs is essential to ensuring transparency, preventing evidence planting, and protecting the rights of the accused. The failure to comply with these safeguards can have significant consequences, including the inadmissibility of evidence and the acquittal of the accused.

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. CORAZON NAZARENO Y FERNANDEZ, G.R. No. 231875, July 29, 2019