In the Philippines, convictions for drug-related offenses hinge on strict adherence to evidence handling procedures. The Supreme Court, in People v. Divinagracia, overturned a lower court’s decision, acquitting Rogelio Divinagracia Jr. and Rosworth Sy of illegal drug sale charges. The Court emphasized that failure to comply with mandatory procedures for handling seized drugs, especially regarding witness requirements during inventory, can lead to acquittal. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting individual rights and preventing potential abuses in drug enforcement.

When Missing Witnesses Mean Freedom: Unpacking a Drug Bust Gone Wrong

The case began with a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers based on information that Divinagracia, also known as “Ensol,” was selling marijuana in Parañaque City. During the operation, PO3 Plopinio, acting as the poseur-buyer, allegedly purchased marijuana from Divinagracia, with Sy, known as “Roro,” assisting in the transaction. Both were arrested and charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Sy was additionally charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. The central legal question revolves around whether the prosecution adequately proved the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the procedural lapses in handling the evidence.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found Divinagracia and Sy guilty, a decision later amended to life imprisonment and a fine of one million pesos each. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this ruling. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, focusing on the critical aspect of **chain of custody** and the mandatory requirements outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. This law meticulously details how law enforcement officers must handle seized drugs to maintain their integrity and evidentiary value.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is very clear about the specific steps. The law states:

SEC. 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 precursor 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, 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 (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 further clarify that the inventory and photographing should occur immediately after seizure, ideally at the site, or the nearest police station if a warrantless seizure occurs. Critically, these actions must be done in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The law aims to prevent evidence tampering. The presence of these witnesses is to ensure transparency and accountability in handling the seized items.

In this particular case, the police officers failed to comply with this **three-witness rule**. Only Kagawad Villar, an elected public official, was present during the inventory. The prosecution did not deny this fact, nor did they offer any explanation for the absence of representatives from the DOJ and the media. The prosecution argued that the chain of custody was sufficiently established because they could account for the seized drugs from the moment of seizure to presentation in court. The Supreme Court rejected this argument.

The Supreme Court cited People v. Mendoza, underscoring the importance of the required witnesses. This case emphasized that without the presence of a media representative, a DOJ representative, or any elected public official, doubt is cast on the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the drugs. The Court stated:

The consequences of the failure of the arresting lawmen to comply with the requirements of Section 21[a] supra, were dire as far as the Prosecution was concerned. 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 [seized drugs], the evils of switching, “planting” or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.

Acknowledging that strict adherence to Section 21 is not always possible, the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 includes a **saving clause**. This allows for deviations from the mandatory procedure under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. However, to invoke this saving clause, the prosecution must first acknowledge the procedural lapses and provide justifiable reasons for them. The prosecution must prove that genuine efforts were made to secure the presence of the required witnesses, but were unsuccessful.

In People v. Divinagracia, the prosecution failed to provide any explanation for the absence of the required witnesses. Because the prosecution didn’t provide a justification for not following procedure, any attempts to argue the chain of custody became irrelevant. The Supreme Court emphasized that the failure to justify the absence of these witnesses rendered the identification of the seized evidence unreliable, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The court held that without these safeguards, there was reasonable doubt about the integrity of the evidence.

The Supreme Court emphasized that compliance with Section 21 is not merely a procedural formality but a vital safeguard against potential abuses. It protects individuals from unscrupulous law enforcement actions and ensures that convictions are based on reliable evidence. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to these protocols and the consequences of failing to do so. This case serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies of the need for strict adherence to procedural guidelines when handling evidence in drug-related cases.

This ruling underscores a core principle: when the prosecution fails to comply with the procedural safeguards in drug cases, the scales of justice must tip in favor of the accused. In this case, the failure to justify the missing witnesses was a critical error, undermining the integrity of the evidence and resulting in the acquittal of Divinagracia and Sy.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the police officers’ failure to comply with the mandatory witness requirements during the inventory of the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
What is the three-witness rule?	The three-witness rule, as outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, mandates that the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs must be done in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.
Why is the three-witness rule important?	The three-witness rule is vital because it ensures transparency and accountability in handling seized drugs, preventing potential abuses such as planting, switching, or contaminating evidence. It safeguards the integrity of the evidence and protects the rights of the accused.
What happens if the police fail to comply with the three-witness rule?	Failure to comply with the three-witness rule can cast doubt on the integrity and credibility of the seized drugs, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. However, the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 has a saving clause.
What is the saving clause in the IRR of R.A. No. 9165?	The saving clause allows for deviations from the mandatory procedure under justifiable grounds, provided that the prosecution can prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
What must the prosecution do to invoke the saving clause?	To invoke the saving clause, the prosecution must acknowledge the procedural lapses, provide justifiable reasons for the non-compliance, and demonstrate that genuine efforts were made to secure the presence of the required witnesses.
What was the outcome of this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Rogelio Divinagracia Jr. and Rosworth Sy because the prosecution failed to provide any explanation for the absence of the required witnesses during the inventory of the seized drugs.
What is the key takeaway from this case for law enforcement?	The key takeaway is the importance of strict adherence to procedural guidelines when handling evidence in drug-related cases. Law enforcement agencies must ensure compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and be prepared to justify any deviations from the mandatory procedures.

The Divinagracia case reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding due process and protecting individual rights, even in the context of drug enforcement. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder that procedural safeguards are not mere technicalities but essential components of a fair and just 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: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROGELIO DIVINAGRACIA, JR. Y DORNILA, G.R. No. 240230, November 28, 2019