The Supreme Court acquitted Ricardo Veriño y Pingol, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant lapses in the handling of seized drugs. This ruling reinforces the necessity for law enforcement to strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items. The decision underscores that non-compliance with these procedures, without justifiable grounds, can lead to the dismissal of drug-related charges, safeguarding individual rights against potential abuses in drug enforcement operations.

Chain of Custody Breakdown: When Drug Evidence Fails to Meet Legal Scrutiny

This case revolves around the arrest and conviction of Ricardo Veriño y Pingol for allegedly possessing dangerous drugs. The prosecution presented evidence that police officers, acting on a tip, conducted a buy-bust operation where they apprehended Veriño and seized three sachets of what was later identified as methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. However, critical procedural lapses in the handling of this evidence led to a successful appeal before the Supreme Court, highlighting the importance of following mandated protocols for drug cases.

The legal framework for handling drug evidence is primarily governed by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640. This section meticulously outlines the required procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, or surrendered drugs and drug paraphernalia. The law states:

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 team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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[;]

The purpose of these stringent requirements is to ensure the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, preventing tampering, alteration, or substitution. The chain of custody is a crucial aspect of establishing the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, and any break in this chain can cast doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecution. This is particularly important in drug cases, where the seized substance itself is the primary evidence of the crime.

In the case of Veriño, several procedural lapses were noted by the Supreme Court. First, the inventory of the seized items was not conducted in full compliance with Section 21. While an elected public official was present, the inventory lacked the signatures of Veriño or his representative and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media. The prosecution failed to provide a justifiable explanation for these omissions. Furthermore, despite testimony indicating that photographs were taken during the inventory, these photos were not presented as evidence.

The Court emphasized that while the law allows for a saving clause in cases of non-compliance with Section 21, this clause applies only when the prosecution can demonstrate justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to explain the reasons for not strictly adhering to the prescribed procedures. Without such justification, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot be invoked to cure the defects in the chain of custody.

The Supreme Court also highlighted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and discrepancies in the documentary evidence. For instance, the Coordination Form for the surveillance of Veriño was prepared before the police officer allegedly received the tip about his illegal activities. Moreover, the Pre-Operation Report initially targeted a different individual, raising questions about the basis for Veriño’s arrest. These inconsistencies further eroded the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

The Court referenced People v. Holgado, emphasizing that the risk of tampering or planting evidence is inversely proportional to the amount of drugs seized. Because only a minuscule quantity of shabu was allegedly recovered from Veriño, the need for strict compliance with Section 21 was even more critical. The Court criticized the lower courts for not demanding stricter adherence to the legal safeguards, especially given the small quantity of drugs involved.

The Supreme Court concluded that the unjustified non-compliance with Section 21 created a substantial gap in the chain of custody, casting doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti. This gap could not be remedied by the presumption of regularity, as the very lapses demonstrated irregularities in the performance of official duties. As a result, the Court acquitted Veriño, reiterating the fundamental principle that a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case serves as a crucial reminder to law enforcement agencies about the importance of meticulous adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. Failure to comply with Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, without justifiable grounds, can have significant consequences, potentially leading to the dismissal of charges and the acquittal of accused individuals.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved Ricardo Veriño’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, despite failing to strictly comply with the procedures outlined in Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
What is Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act?	Section 21 outlines the procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, or surrendered drugs, requiring a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items in the presence of the accused and representatives from the media or the National Prosecution Service.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	The chain of custody ensures the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, preventing tampering, alteration, or substitution, and establishing the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime.
What were the procedural lapses in this case?	The procedural lapses included the absence of the accused’s signature or a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media on the inventory, the failure to present photographs of the inventory, and inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
What is the saving clause in Section 21?	The saving clause allows for non-compliance with the strict requirements of Section 21 if the prosecution can demonstrate justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What burden does the prosecution have when there is non-compliance with Section 21?	The prosecution has the burden of explaining why Section 21 was not strictly complied with and proving its proffered justifiable ground during trial.
How did the small quantity of drugs affect the Court’s decision?	The Court emphasized that the small quantity of drugs seized underscored the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21, as the risk of tampering or planting evidence is higher with minuscule amounts of narcotics.
Can the presumption of regularity cure defects in the chain of custody?	No, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot be invoked to cure defects in the chain of custody when there are clear irregularities in the performance of official duties.
What was the result of the Supreme Court’s review?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and acquitted Ricardo Veriño, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the constitutional rights of the accused and ensuring that law enforcement agencies adhere to the strictures of the law in drug-related cases. Strict compliance with chain of custody procedures is not merely a formality but a critical safeguard against potential abuses that can undermine the integrity of the criminal justice 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: RICARDO VERIÑO Y PINGOL vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 225710, June 19, 2019