In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Lamberto Mariñas y Fernando of illegal drug possession due to a broken chain of custody. The Court emphasized the critical importance of strict adherence to procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, particularly concerning the presence of required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of seized items. This decision underscores the prosecution’s burden to prove an unbroken chain of custody and justify any deviations from established protocols, reinforcing the presumption of innocence and safeguarding against potential evidence tampering.

When Missing Witnesses Lead to Freedom: Examining Drug Possession and Chain of Custody

The case of Lamberto Mariñas y Fernando v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 232891, July 23, 2018) revolves around the complexities of illegal drug possession and the stringent requirements of evidence handling. The petitioner, Lamberto Mariñas, was charged with violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, after being allegedly caught in possession of a small amount of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or “shabu”. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in affirming Mariñas’s conviction, given his claims of a broken chain of custody and inconsistencies in the arresting officers’ testimonies.

To secure a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish several key elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, it must prove that the accused was indeed in possession of dangerous drugs. Second, it must demonstrate that such possession was not authorized by law. Finally, the prosecution needs to show that the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the illegal substances. The linchpin of any drug-related case lies in proving the identity of the prohibited drug, as it constitutes the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. The prosecution must demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody, ensuring no doubts arise concerning the drug’s identity due to switching, planting, or contamination.

Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 states:

Sec. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. – The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof: x x x Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows: x x x (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”, or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or “ecstasy”, PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.

The petitioner argued that the arresting officers violated Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 by marking the seized sachets at the police station instead of the place of arrest. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court permits warrantless arrests when a person is caught in flagrante delicto, meaning in the act of committing a crime. All requirements for a lawful search and seizure were present in this case. The police officers were conducting a follow-up operation on carnapping incidents, when they saw the petitioner holding a plastic sachet containing suspected illegal drugs. The police officers were justified in seizing the substance, which was plainly visible.

The IRR of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides guidelines that the marking of seized items shall be done immediately at the place where the drugs were seized or at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.

Relevant jurisprudence dictates that if seizure was made as a consequence of or pursuant to a warrantless arrest, the physical inventory and marking may be conducted at the nearest police station. In People v. Relato, the Supreme Court explained that in a prosecution for the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the State must prove the elements of the offense and also the corpus delicti. The State does not establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court. Any gap renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, before it was amended by R.A. No. 10640, laid down the procedure that must be observed and followed by police officers in the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs. Paragraph (1) provided a list of witnesses required to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs and the venue where these should be conducted:

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 precursors 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 (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

The Court emphasized that failure of the arresting officers to justify the absence of the required witnesses, specifically a representative from the media or the DOJ, and any elected official, constitutes a substantial gap in the chain of custody. In this case, only a media representative was present during the inventory, aside from the petitioner and the arresting officers. The Supreme Court noted that a perfect chain of custody is almost impossible to achieve and that minor procedural lapses or deviations are excused so long as the arresting officers put in their best effort to comply with the same and the justifiable ground for non-compliance is proven as a fact.

In People v. Umipang, the Court held that minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused. However, when there is a gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. 9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items. The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the arresting officers’ non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. As such, the Court acquitted the petitioner.

The Constitution mandates that an accused in a criminal case shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The prosecution bears the burden to overcome such presumption. If the prosecution fails to discharge this burden, the accused deserves a judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court emphasized that to merit conviction, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of evidence presented by the defense.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the petitioner’s conviction, given his claims of a broken chain of custody and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule requires the prosecution to account for each link in the chain of possession of seized drugs, from seizure to presentation in court, to ensure the integrity and identity of the evidence.
What witnesses were required to be present during the inventory under the old law?	Under the old provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official were required to be present during the inventory.
What happens if the required witnesses are not present during the inventory?	The absence of the required witnesses, without justifiable grounds, constitutes a substantial gap in the chain of custody, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused.
What is the effect of R.A. No. 10640 on the witness requirement?	R.A. No. 10640 amended Section 21, reducing the number of required witnesses to two: an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media.
What is the role of the prosecution in cases of non-compliance with Section 21?	The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and must justify any deviations from the law.
What constitutes a justifiable ground for non-compliance with Section 21?	Justifiable grounds may include the impossibility of securing the presence of witnesses due to remote locations, threats to safety, or involvement of elected officials in the crime.
What is the presumption of innocence in criminal cases?	The Constitution mandates that an accused in a criminal case shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and the prosecution bears the burden to overcome this presumption.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a reminder of the importance of strict compliance with the procedural safeguards outlined in R.A. No. 9165. The unjustified absence of required witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs can create a substantial gap in the chain of custody, raising serious doubts about the integrity of the evidence and potentially leading to acquittal. Law enforcement agencies must adhere to these requirements to ensure the reliability and admissibility of evidence in drug-related cases.

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: LAMBERTO MARIÑAS Y FERNANDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 232891, July 23, 2018