In People of the Philippines vs. Hilario De Castro, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, emphasizing the stringent requirements for preserving the integrity and identity of seized drugs. The Court held that the police officers’ deviation from the mandated procedures, particularly the absence of required witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs, compromised the integrity of the evidence. This ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, protecting individuals from wrongful convictions and ensuring the reliability of evidence presented in court.

When a Buy-Bust Goes Wrong: Can Evidence Stand Without Mandatory Witnesses?

The case began with two separate Informations filed against Hilario De Castro y Santos, also known as “Dacoy,” for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. These charges stemmed from an alleged buy-bust operation conducted on August 4, 2010, in Muntinlupa City. The prosecution asserted that De Castro was caught selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. De Castro pleaded not guilty to both charges, leading to a trial where the prosecution and defense presented conflicting accounts of the events.

According to the prosecution, a buy-bust operation was initiated based on a tip that De Castro was selling shabu. PO3 Amodia, acting as the poseur-buyer, allegedly purchased shabu from De Castro, after which De Castro was arrested. The police officers marked the seized drugs at the place of arrest. However, due to concerns about a possible commotion and the lack of necessary documents, the police decided to bring De Castro and the seized evidence to their office for inventory. The prosecution argued that despite the absence of representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official during the inventory, there was substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of seized items, and their integrity and evidentiary value were not diminished.

De Castro, on the other hand, claimed that he was arrested on August 3, 2010, while working as an Ice Delivery Truck Driver. He alleged that three men, who later turned out to be policemen, grabbed and searched him without providing any explanation. He was then taken to the CID Office, and later, he learned that he was charged with violations of Sections 11 and 5 of R.A. 9165. De Castro denied selling illegal drugs and claimed that the police arrested him without any basis.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found De Castro guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases, sentencing him to imprisonment and fines. The RTC ruled that the prosecution successfully proved the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and that the buy-bust operation was well-documented. De Castro appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed his conviction. The CA ruled that all the elements of the crimes were proven and that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 did not invalidate the seizure and custody of the contraband, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

The Supreme Court (SC), however, disagreed with the lower courts and granted De Castro’s appeal, acquitting him of all charges. The central issue before the SC was whether De Castro’s guilt for violating Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated drug constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is essential, therefore, that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs must be established with moral certainty.

The Court focused on Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which strictly requires that the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation, and that the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). The SC emphasized that these three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the inventory, which must be done immediately at the place of seizure and confiscation.

While the Court acknowledged that strict compliance with Section 21 may not always be possible, it reiterated that the prosecution must still satisfactorily prove that there is justifiable ground for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this case, the Court found that the police officers blatantly disregarded the requirements of Section 21 and had no valid excuse for their deviation from the rules.

The Court noted that the police officers admitted that none of the three required witnesses was present at the time of arrest and seizure of the drugs, nor during the inventory at the police office. PO3 Amodia testified that they merely tried to “call-in” the three witnesses after the buy-bust operation, a practice that the law seeks to prevent. The Court stated that the police officers offered nothing but a flimsy excuse for their deviation from the requirements, alleging that they transferred to the police station because people started to come out and there might be a possible commotion. They even admitted that they did not bring the necessary documents at the place of arrest, which the Court found unacceptable.

The Supreme Court cited the case of People v. Lim, emphasizing that the prosecution must allege and prove that the presence of the three witnesses was not obtained due to reasons such as the place of arrest being a remote area, threats to their safety, involvement of the elected official in the punishable acts, futile efforts to secure their presence despite earnest efforts, or time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations. None of these circumstances were present in De Castro’s case, and the Court deemed their excuse for non-compliance unacceptable. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were thus compromised, necessitating De Castro’s acquittal.

The Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence of the accused is superior to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a constitutionally protected right, and the presumption of regularity cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence. In this case, the buy-bust team’s blatant disregard of the established procedures under Section 21 of RA 9165 undermined the presumption of regularity.

The Court concluded that due to the multiple unexplained breaches of procedure committed by the buy-bust team in the seizure, custody, and handling of the seized drug, the prosecution failed to prove the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The Court emphasized that for both offenses, it is crucial that the prosecution establishes the identity of the seized dangerous drugs in a way that the integrity thereof has been well-preserved from the time of seizure or confiscation from the accused until the time of presentation as evidence in court.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted De Castro, highlighting the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165. This decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies of the need to strictly comply with the law in handling drug-related cases to ensure the integrity of the evidence and protect the constitutional rights of the accused.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved Hilario De Castro’s guilt for violating Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 beyond reasonable doubt, considering the police officers’ non-compliance with the procedural requirements for handling seized drugs.
What is Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, requiring immediate inventory and photographing of the drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
Why did the Supreme Court acquit Hilario De Castro?	The Supreme Court acquitted De Castro because the police officers failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically the presence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory of the seized drugs, compromising the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
What is the significance of the three mandatory witnesses?	The presence of representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official is required to ensure transparency and prevent planting of evidence by law enforcement officers during drug operations.
What is the corpus delicti in drug cases?	In drug cases, the corpus delicti refers to the actual dangerous drug itself, which must be proven to establish the fact that a crime has been committed; its identity and integrity must be preserved throughout the legal proceedings.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	If the police fail to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 without a justifiable reason, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are compromised, which can lead to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt.
What is the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties?	The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes public officials, including police officers, perform their duties in accordance with the law and established procedures, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Why did the Court favor the presumption of innocence in this case?	The Court favored the presumption of innocence because the police officers’ blatant disregard of the established procedures under Section 21 of RA 9165 cast doubt on the regularity of their performance of official duties, undermining the reliability of the evidence presented against De Castro.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. De Castro underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that law enforcement adheres to strict procedural requirements in drug cases. By prioritizing the preservation of evidence integrity and the presence of mandatory witnesses, the Court reinforces the importance of due process and protects individuals from potential abuses of power. This ruling serves as a significant reminder of the need for meticulous compliance with legal protocols to safeguard justice and fairness in the Philippine legal system.

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 vs. De Castro, G.R. No. 243386, September 02, 2019