In a ruling that reinforces the importance of due process and the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to bail for an accused, Novo Tanes y Belmonte, due to significant lapses in the chain of custody of the seized substance. The Court emphasized that strict adherence to procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, particularly Section 21 regarding the handling of confiscated drugs, is essential to protect individuals from potential abuses. This decision underscores that failure to properly maintain the chain of custody weakens the prosecution’s evidence, thereby justifying the grant of bail.

When Missing Witnesses Undermine Drug Case: Safeguarding Due Process in Buy-Bust Operations

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Novo Tanes y Belmonte revolves around the grant of bail to Tanes, who was charged with selling illegal drugs. The central legal question is whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting bail, considering the prosecution’s evidence and the procedural requirements for handling drug evidence.

The facts reveal that Tanes was apprehended in a buy-bust operation and charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Following his not guilty plea, Tanes applied for bail, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted. The RTC based its decision on doubts surrounding the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, prompting the People to file a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

At the heart of this case lies the constitutional right to bail, enshrined in Section 13, Article III of the Constitution:

SEC. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

This right is further elaborated in Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which specifies that individuals charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua may be denied bail only when evidence of guilt is strong.

The Supreme Court emphasized the procedure for determining whether the evidence of guilt is strong, noting that bail hearings are required, and the prosecution bears the burden of proof. The Court reiterated that a summary hearing must be conducted to determine the weight of the evidence for purposes of bail. Moreover, the court’s decision to grant or deny bail must include a summary of the prosecution’s evidence, which serves as the basis for the judge’s conclusion on the strength of the evidence against the accused.

In this case, the Court found that the trial court did not deprive the petitioner of procedural due process. Records indicated that bail hearings were conducted with the prosecution duly represented. The Supreme Court referenced Revilla, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), clarifying that a summary of evidence is not necessarily a complete restatement of all evidence presented, but rather a formal recognition and consideration of the evidence during the prior hearing:

x x x The summary of the evidence shows that the evidence presented during the prior hearing is formally recognized as having been presented and most importantly, considered. The summary of the evidence is the basis for the judge’s exercising his judicial discretion. Only after weighing the pieces of evidence as contained in the summary will the judge formulate his own conclusion as to whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong based on his discretion. Thus, judicial discretion is not unbridled but must be supported by a finding of the facts relied upon to form an opinion on the issue before the court. x x x

This principle underscores the trial court’s compliance with procedural requirements.

The Court then focused on the critical issue of the chain of custody of the seized drug. It emphasized that in drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti, and therefore, strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial. Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, outlines the procedure for maintaining the integrity of confiscated drugs, including immediate inventory and photography in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.

The Court highlighted several procedural lapses in the case, as noted by the RTC and CA: the absence of a DOJ representative, the delayed presence of other witnesses, and the lack of photographic evidence showing the inventory in the presence of all required parties. These lapses raised significant doubts about the integrity and identity of the seized drug, weakening the prosecution’s evidence against Tanes. The significance of the presence of the three witnesses is underscored in People v. Supat:

…the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension – a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. In other words, the buy-bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them said witnesses.

The Court also addressed the petitioner’s argument that the trial court erred in relying on the case of Jehar Reyes. The Court affirmed the trial court’s reliance on Jehar Reyes, which emphasized the importance of the presence of media and DOJ representatives, and an elected public official during the buy-bust operation and the confiscation of drugs. The purpose of this requirement, as stated in Jehar Reyes, is to prevent the planting of evidence and ensure a fair process:

Thirdly, another substantial gap in the chain of custody concerned the absence of any representative of the media or of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and of the elected public official during the buy-bust operation and at the time of the confiscation of the dangerous drugs from the accused in the area of operation…The objective of requiring their presence during the buy-bust operation and at the time of the recovery or confiscation of the dangerous drugs from the accused in the area of operation was to ensure against planting of evidence and frame up.

The Supreme Court clarified that unless overturned, Jehar Reyes remains good case law, and the RTC’s reliance on it was justified.

Finally, the Court acknowledged that failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the items. However, the prosecution must provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance and demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The Court emphasized that its ruling should not prejudice the submission of additional evidence by the prosecution to prove Tanes’ guilt in the main case. The grant of bail does not prevent the RTC from making a final assessment of the evidence after a full trial on the merits.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision to grant bail to the accused, Novo Tanes y Belmonte, who was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Why was bail granted to the accused?	Bail was granted because of significant lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drugs, which raised doubts about the integrity and identity of the evidence against the accused.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule requires strict adherence to procedures for handling confiscated drugs to ensure that the evidence presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused. This includes proper documentation, handling, and storage of the drugs.
Who should be present during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs?	According to Section 21 of R.A. 9165, the inventory and photographing 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.
What happens if there are lapses in the chain of custody?	Lapses in the chain of custody can weaken the prosecution’s evidence, potentially leading to the exclusion of the evidence or the acquittal of the accused. In this case, it justified the grant of bail.
What did the Supreme Court say about the presence of witnesses during a buy-bust operation?	The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of securing the presence of the three witnesses (media, DOJ, and elected public official) not only during the inventory but also at the time of the warrantless arrest to ensure transparency and prevent evidence planting.
Does the grant of bail mean the accused is acquitted?	No, the grant of bail only means that the accused is allowed temporary liberty while the case is ongoing. The trial court will still conduct a full trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
What is the significance of the Jehar Reyes case?	The Jehar Reyes case reinforces the need for the presence of media and DOJ representatives, and an elected public official during the buy-bust operation and confiscation of drugs to prevent evidence planting and ensure a fair process.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the critical role of procedural safeguards, particularly the chain of custody rule, in protecting individuals’ rights in drug cases. The ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to strictly comply with these procedures to ensure the integrity of evidence and uphold the principles of due process. The failure to do so can have significant consequences, including the grant of bail and potential challenges to the prosecution’s case.

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. NOVO TANES Y BELMONTE, G.R. No. 240596, April 03, 2019