In Philippine law, the integrity of drug evidence is paramount. The Supreme Court has consistently held that strict adherence to the chain of custody rule is crucial in drug-related cases. This means that the prosecution must account for each link in the chain, from the moment the drug is seized until it is presented in court as evidence. Failure to comply with this procedure can lead to the acquittal of the accused, as seen in the case of People v. Jayson Merando y Aves. The court emphasized that any unjustified noncompliance with the chain of custody procedure raises doubt about the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug, warranting an acquittal.

From Buy-Bust to Bust: When Evidence Handling Undermines a Drug Conviction

The case of People v. Jayson Merando y Aves began with a buy-bust operation conducted by the Pasig City Police. Based on information from a confidential informant, police officers targeted Merando for allegedly selling marijuana. The operation led to Merando’s arrest and the seizure of a plastic sachet containing what was suspected to be marijuana. However, the subsequent handling of the seized evidence became the focal point of the legal battle. The critical issue was whether the police officers complied with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs.

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides specific guidelines for maintaining the integrity of seized drug evidence. It mandates that the apprehending team immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These individuals are required to sign the inventory, ensuring transparency and accountability. The law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations further stipulate that non-compliance with these requirements may be excused under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

In Merando’s case, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found him guilty, asserting that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody. The RTC emphasized that the absence of third-party witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized items did not undermine the evidence’s integrity. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, stating that Merando failed to prove any bad faith or tampering with the evidence. The Supreme Court (SC), however, took a different view, highlighting the significant lapses in the police officers’ compliance with Section 21.

The Supreme Court found that the police officers failed to secure the presence of the required third-party witnesses during the actual seizure and inventory of the evidence. This non-compliance raised serious doubts about the integrity of the seized marijuana. The Court referenced previous cases, such as People v. Sagana and People v. Que, to underscore the importance of third-party witnesses as an “insulating presence” against the risk of evidence switching, planting, or contamination. The Court emphasized that the presence of these witnesses is crucial not only during the inventory and photographing but also during the actual seizure of the items.

The Court also noted that the arresting officers had ample time to secure the presence of third-party witnesses, having received the initial report about Merando’s alleged drug dealing approximately 19 hours before the buy-bust operation. Despite this ample time, they failed to secure the presence of a media representative, a DOJ representative, or an elected official. Furthermore, the Court observed that the police officers did not photograph the seized items at the place of arrest simultaneously with the conduct of inventory, which further deviated from the prescribed procedure.

The prosecution’s failure to provide a justifiable reason for their non-compliance with Section 21 proved fatal to their case. They merely relied on the presumption that they had performed their duties regularly, absent any evidence of ill motive. However, the Court clarified that this presumption does not apply when the official act is irregular on its face. In this case, the clear deviations from the requirements of Section 21 invalidated the presumption of regularity, placing the burden on the prosecution to provide a valid justification for their non-compliance, which they failed to do.

The Court emphasized the stringent nature of the chain of custody rule, noting that strict compliance is essential to safeguard against tampering, substitution, and planting of evidence. In Mallillin v. People, the Court underscored the unique characteristic of narcotic substances, which are not readily identifiable and are susceptible to alteration or substitution. Therefore, a more exacting standard is required to authenticate drug evidence, ensuring that the original item has not been exchanged or contaminated.

Given the police officers’ failure to comply with Section 21 and the absence of any justifiable reason for their non-compliance, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and acquitted Jayson Merando y Aves. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting the critical importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. This case serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to strictly follow the procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165 to ensure the integrity of drug evidence and protect the rights of the accused.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the police officers complied with the chain of custody rule outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 when handling the seized drug evidence. The court examined if the failure to adhere to these procedures compromised the integrity of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the process of documenting and tracking the seizure, transfer, and storage of evidence to ensure its integrity and prevent tampering. It requires law enforcement to account for each person who handled the evidence and the circumstances under which it was handled.
Why is the chain of custody rule important in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule is crucial in drug cases because drugs are easily susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution. Strict adherence to the rule ensures that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused, establishing the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. These individuals must sign the inventory, and a copy must be provided to them.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Failure to comply with Section 21 can render the seized evidence inadmissible in court, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. However, non-compliance may be excused if the prosecution provides a justifiable reason and proves that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and acquitted Jayson Merando y Aves. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to the police officers’ non-compliance with Section 21 and the lack of a justifiable reason for their non-compliance.
Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused?	The Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the police officers failed to secure the presence of third-party witnesses during the seizure and inventory of the evidence, did not photograph the items at the place of arrest, and did not provide a justifiable reason for these lapses. These failures created reasonable doubt about the integrity of the evidence.
What is the role of third-party witnesses in drug cases?	Third-party witnesses, such as media representatives, DOJ representatives, and elected public officials, serve as an “insulating presence” to ensure transparency and prevent the risk of evidence switching, planting, or contamination. Their presence helps maintain the integrity of the evidence and protects the rights of the accused.
Can non-compliance with Section 21 ever be excused?	Yes, non-compliance with Section 21 can be excused under justifiable grounds, provided that the prosecution proves that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. However, the prosecution must provide a valid reason for the non-compliance, which was lacking in this case.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Jayson Merando y Aves underscores the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow the procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165 to ensure the integrity of drug evidence and protect the rights of the accused. Failure to comply with these procedures 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 v. Merando, G.R. No. 232620, August 05, 2019