In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Niña Caray y Emmanuel of illegal drug charges, emphasizing the critical importance of strictly following the chain of custody rule in handling seized drug evidence. The Court held that the failure of law enforcement to ensure the presence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs, as required by Republic Act No. 9165, compromised the integrity of the evidence and warranted the accused’s acquittal. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual rights and ensuring that drug-related convictions are based on reliable and untainted evidence.

Flaws in Custody: How a Buy-Bust Led to Acquittal

The case of People of the Philippines v. Niña Caray y Emmanuel originated from a buy-bust operation conducted by the District Anti-illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group (DAID-SOTG) in Caloocan City. PO3 Alexander Arguelles, acting as a poseur-buyer, allegedly purchased two sachets of shabu from Niña Caray y Emmanuel. Following the arrest, an inventory of the seized items was conducted, but it lacked the presence of an elected public official and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), as mandated by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

The trial court convicted Caray, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court reversed these rulings, focusing on the procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drugs. The core of the legal issue revolved around whether the prosecution had successfully established an unbroken chain of custody, ensuring that the substance presented in court was the same one seized from the accused. The Court emphasized that in illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti, making its proper preservation crucial for a conviction.

Section 21 of RA 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, outlines the procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. The law explicitly requires that immediately after seizure, a physical inventory and photograph of the drugs must be conducted in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official. This requirement is designed to ensure transparency and prevent tampering or substitution of evidence.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 further emphasize this requirement, stating that the inventory and photography should be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served, or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in case of warrantless seizures. The law also provides a proviso that non-compliance with these requirements may be excused under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this saving clause is not a blanket exception and requires a clear justification for the deviation from the prescribed procedure.

In this case, the prosecution failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the absence of the required witnesses during the inventory. The Court noted that merely stating that no elected official and DOJ representative were available is insufficient. The prosecution must demonstrate that earnest efforts were made to contact these representatives. This principle was highlighted in People v. Umipang, where the Court stated that a sheer statement of unavailability, without evidence of serious attempts to secure their presence, is a flimsy excuse.

The absence of these insulating witnesses raises doubts about the integrity of the evidence. Without them, the possibility of switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence cannot be ruled out. This concern is particularly significant in drug cases, where the potential for abuse and manipulation is high. The Supreme Court has consistently stressed the importance of strict compliance with the chain of custody rule to safeguard the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the judicial process. As the Court emphasized in People v. Bintaib, the presence of insulating witnesses during inventory is vital.

The prosecution argued that despite the procedural lapses, the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved, and therefore, Caray should still be convicted. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the saving clause in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 cannot be invoked without a justifiable reason for the non-compliance with the witness requirement. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the condition sine qua non for the saving clause to become operational.

The decision in People v. Niña Caray y Emmanuel reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the constitutional rights of the accused. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies that strict adherence to procedural requirements is essential in drug cases, and that any deviation from these requirements must be justified with clear and convincing evidence. This ruling also highlights the importance of the insulating witnesses in ensuring transparency and accountability in the handling of seized drugs, thereby preventing potential abuses and maintaining public trust in the justice system.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscored the vital role of each step in the chain of custody. The marking of evidence at the crime scene by the arresting officer, the proper documentation of the transfer of custody, and the safe storage of the seized items are all critical to preserving the integrity of the evidence. Any break in this chain can create reasonable doubt and undermine the prosecution’s case. In this instance the Court quoted People v. Abelarde^[17] and People v. Macud,^[18] wherein the accused were acquitted due to similar violations of Section 5, RA 9165.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, considering the absence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory.
Who are the mandatory witnesses required during the inventory of seized drugs?	The mandatory witnesses are a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.
What happens if the mandatory witnesses are not present during the inventory?	The absence of mandatory witnesses raises doubts about the integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused, unless the prosecution can provide a justifiable reason for the absence and prove the integrity of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution establish a clear and unbroken trail of possession from the moment the drugs are seized until they are presented in court as evidence, ensuring that the substance is the same one seized from the accused.
What is the significance of the corpus delicti in drug cases?	The corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, in drug cases is the drug itself. Its proper preservation and identification are crucial for a conviction.
What did the Supreme Court rule in this case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Niña Caray y Emmanuel, holding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody due to the absence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory of the seized drugs.
What is the saving clause in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165?	The saving clause allows for leniency in case of non-compliance with the procedural requirements under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
What must the prosecution show to invoke the saving clause?	The prosecution must demonstrate that earnest efforts were made to contact the mandatory witnesses and provide a justifiable reason for their absence.

This case reinforces the need for law enforcement to strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards outlined in RA 9165. The presence of media representatives, DOJ representatives, and elected officials during the inventory process provides a layer of transparency that protects against potential abuse and ensures the integrity of the evidence. This decision serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice must be balanced with the protection of individual rights and that shortcuts in procedure can have significant consequences.

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. Niña Caray y Emmanuel, G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019