In People v. Cornel, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Ramoncito Cornel for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs due to a failure in establishing an unbroken chain of custody of the seized item. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s inability to provide justifiable reasons for deviations from the standard procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, particularly regarding the immediate inventory and presence of required witnesses, raised reasonable doubt. This decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards to protect the integrity of evidence and ensure fair trials in drug-related cases.

When a Commotion Creates Reasonable Doubt: Examining Drug Evidence Integrity

The case of People of the Philippines v. Ramoncito Cornel y Asuncion centers around an alleged buy-bust operation that led to Cornel’s arrest and subsequent conviction for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Cornel sold 0.03 grams of shabu to an undercover police officer for Php1,000. However, Cornel contested his arrest, claiming it was a case of mistaken identity. The crucial legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, thereby proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance presented in court was indeed the same one confiscated from Cornel.

Under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs require proof of the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale and its consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Critical to a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is presenting the drug itself as evidence in court, proving it is the same substance seized from the accused. As the Supreme Court emphasized, the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused constitute the corpus delicti of the charges. This principle was underscored in People v. Gatlabayan, where the Court stated that establishing the identity of the dangerous drug beyond reasonable doubt is of paramount importance. The prosecution must prove with certainty that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. The illegal drug must be produced before the court as an exhibit, and that which was exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect.

To ensure an unbroken chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 specifies clear guidelines for handling seized drugs. The apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation. This must be done in the presence of the accused, or their representative, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. All individuals must sign the copies of the inventory and receive a copy. Section 21 (a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 further clarifies that the inventory and photography should be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served or, in cases of warrantless seizures, at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, whichever is practicable. The IRR provides a critical caveat: non-compliance with these requirements is acceptable under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. This caveat recognizes the practical difficulties law enforcement may face in adhering strictly to the requirements.

In this case, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu taken from Cornel were clearly established by the prosecution. The CA noted that the marking of the shabu occurred at the Barangay Hall of East Rembo, Makati, in the presence of SPO1 Randy L. Obedoza, Cornel, and four barangay tanods. An inventory was conducted, and a Chain of Custody and Inventory Receipt were prepared. Furthermore, the CA stated that the prosecution sufficiently explained why the item seized was not immediately marked at the target place, attributing it to a commotion after Cornel’s arrest, which prompted the team to make the markings at the Barangay Hall for security purposes.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s assessment, asserting that the prosecution failed to provide justifiable reasons for the deviations from the prescribed procedures. The Court pointed to the fact that the inventory was not conducted at the place of arrest but at the Barangay Hall. While the prosecution cited security concerns due to a commotion, the Court found this explanation insufficient, especially given the presence of eight police officers, seven of whom were armed. The Court reasoned that such a contingent should have been capable of containing any commotion and proceeding with the immediate inventory of the seized item, as required by law.

Furthermore, the Court noted the unexplained absence of a representative from the media and the Department of Justice during the inventory of the seized item. These omissions were particularly problematic because they directly contravened the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which was enacted to ensure transparency and prevent potential abuse. The Court emphasized the critical role these representatives play in safeguarding against evidence planting and ensuring the integrity of the entire process. The absence of a valid explanation for these deviations from the prescribed procedure raised substantial doubts about the integrity and identity of the seized item.

The decision highlights the importance of the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. The chain of custody ensures that the integrity and identity of the seized drug are preserved from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. Any unexplained break or gap in this chain can cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence. Given the prosecution’s failure to adequately justify the procedural lapses and to establish that the seized item’s identity was preserved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court acquitted Cornel.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the identity of the seized item had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, and it acquitted the appellant. This case underscores the crucial importance of adhering to the procedural requirements in drug-related cases, especially those concerning the chain of custody. It further emphasizes that while deviations from the prescribed procedures may be permissible under justifiable grounds, the prosecution bears the burden of proving such grounds and demonstrating that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, thus proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance presented in court was the same one confiscated from the accused.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule ensures that the integrity and identity of seized evidence, particularly drugs, are preserved from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, accounting for every person who handled the evidence and the circumstances under which it was handled.
What does Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 require?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official, all of whom must sign the inventory.
What happens if there is non-compliance with Section 21?	Non-compliance with Section 21 can be excused if there are justifiable grounds, provided the prosecution proves that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
Why were the procedural lapses in this case not excused?	The Supreme Court found the prosecution’s explanation for not conducting the inventory at the place of arrest and the absence of required witnesses insufficient and unjustifiable, raising doubts about the integrity of the evidence.
What was the impact of the Court’s decision?	The Court acquitted the accused, Ramoncito Cornel, due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody and provide justifiable reasons for deviations from the prescribed procedures.
Who bears the burden of proof in establishing justifiable grounds for non-compliance?	The prosecution bears the burden of proving justifiable grounds for non-compliance with Section 21 and demonstrating that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What is the significance of having media and DOJ representatives present during the inventory?	The presence of media and DOJ representatives is intended to ensure transparency, prevent potential abuse, and safeguard against evidence planting, thereby enhancing the integrity of the entire process.

This case reinforces the critical importance of strictly adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in R.A. No. 9165 to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that deviations from these procedures, even if seemingly minor, can have significant consequences and may result in the acquittal of the accused if not properly justified. The prosecution’s inability to provide a clear and convincing explanation for the procedural lapses ultimately led to the reversal of the conviction, highlighting the necessity of meticulous compliance with the law.

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 v. Ramoncito Cornel y Asuncion, G.R. No. 229047, April 16, 2018