In People v. Macaumbang, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to significant gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs and non-compliance with the witness requirements under Republic Act No. 9165. The Court emphasized that strict adherence to procedural safeguards is crucial to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of evidence in drug cases. This decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement of the importance of meticulously following the mandated procedures to secure convictions in drug-related offenses.

From Barber Shop Bust to Botched Evidence: How a Drug Case Fell Apart

The case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) against Nasrollah Macaumbang and Jose Sagarbaria for allegedly selling 98.05 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Following their arrest and the seizure of the drugs, procedural lapses in handling the evidence became central to the defense. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both accused guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court (SC) reversed these rulings, focusing on the prosecution’s failure to properly establish the chain of custody and to comply with the witness requirements stipulated in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the critical importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity and identity of the seized drug. The **chain of custody** is defined as:

“duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction.”

The Court found significant gaps in the prosecution’s evidence regarding the custody of the seized item. First, the marking of the seized item was not done immediately upon seizure, violating protocol. Second, prosecution witnesses offered conflicting accounts of who possessed the drugs after the arrest. The testimonies of PO3 Jonathan Cruz and SPO1 Tomas Calicdan were inconsistent as to who had actual possession of the seized item from the place of arrest to Camp Crame. Crucially, Police Senior Inspector Manan Muarip, who held the specimen for a significant period, was not presented as a witness. Therefore, there was no testimony as to how he handled the evidence.

Building on this point, the Court emphasized that the law mandates a specific procedure for handling drug evidence, outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as well as the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). The relevant portions of the IRR are as follows:

SECTION 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 officer/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: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

In addition to the gaps in the chain of custody, the Court found that the mandatory witness requirements during the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs were not met. During the inventory, only a barangay kagawad was present, while representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media were absent. This failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, without justifiable reason, further compromised the integrity of the evidence. The Court pointed out that the prosecution did not provide any explanation for the absence of the required witnesses, despite having ample time to secure their presence.

Building on this, the court cited previous rulings highlighting the significance of the presence of these witnesses at the time of apprehension:

The phrase “immediately after seizure and confiscation” means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. And only if this is not practicable, does the IRR allow that the inventory and photographing be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. **By the same token, this also means that 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.

This ruling clarifies the need for law enforcement to ensure the witnesses are present during the buy-bust operation itself, further emphasizing the stringent requirements for handling drug cases. The absence of these witnesses, coupled with the mishandling of the evidence, ultimately led to the acquittal of the accused.

While the law provides a saving clause for non-compliance with the requirements of Sec. 21, it requires the prosecution to demonstrate justifiable grounds for such non-compliance and to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide sufficient justification or assurance regarding the handling of the seized drugs, thereby invalidating the evidence presented against the accused. The explanation that the accused had “police coddlers” was not enough to justify the absence of the DOJ and media representatives.

Furthermore, the absence of photographs of the seized items further weakened the prosecution’s case. The explanation that the film was “not developed” was deemed unacceptable, considering the other procedural lapses committed by the arresting team. The Court reiterated its consistent plea to law enforcers and prosecution agents to be more mindful of the requirements of the law in their efforts to bring to justice those who violate R.A. No. 9165. While acknowledging the importance of eradicating drug proliferation, the Court emphasized its duty to safeguard the rights of the accused, in compliance with law and jurisprudence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, considering the requirements set forth by Section 21 of the same law. This involved assessing whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly maintained and whether the mandatory witness requirements were met.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of seizure to presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence by documenting each stage of handling and possession.
What are the witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Section 21 requires the presence of the accused (or their representative), a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs. These witnesses are required to sign the inventory.
Why are the witness requirements important?	The witness requirements serve as safeguards to ensure transparency and prevent tampering or mishandling of seized drugs. Their presence helps to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs presented in court.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, it raises doubts about the identity and integrity of the evidence. This can lead to the acquittal of the accused, as the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused.
Can non-compliance with Section 21 be excused?	Yes, non-compliance can be excused under justifiable grounds, as long as the prosecution proves that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. However, the prosecution must provide a valid explanation for the non-compliance.
What was the outcome of this case?	The Supreme Court granted the appeal of the accused and acquitted them of the crime charged. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and did not comply with the witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	This ruling emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases. Law enforcement agencies must meticulously follow the requirements of R.A. No. 9165 to ensure the admissibility of evidence and secure convictions, while protecting the rights of the accused.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the critical balance between combating drug-related offenses and upholding the constitutional rights of the accused. The meticulous adherence to procedural requirements in handling drug evidence is essential to maintain the integrity of the legal process. The ruling in People v. Macaumbang serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies that shortcuts in procedure can undermine the entire case, potentially leading to the acquittal of guilty individuals.

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 v. Macaumbang, G.R. No. 208836, April 01, 2019