The Supreme Court acquitted Armie Narvas y Bolasoc due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere to mandatory procedures in handling seized drugs. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial in drug cases to protect against planting, contamination, or loss of evidence. This decision reinforces the importance of safeguarding constitutional rights and ensuring that law enforcement follows proper protocols to avoid wrongful convictions.

Did Police Missteps Enable an Unjust Drug Conviction?

The case of People of the Philippines v. Armie Narvas y Bolasoc revolves around the accused’s conviction for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. Accused-appellant Narvas was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Supreme Court, however, reversed these decisions, focusing on the integrity of the evidence and the adherence to procedural safeguards outlined in Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”. The core legal question was whether the prosecution adequately proved Narvas’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the alleged breaches in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

In cases involving violations of RA 9165, the prosecution must prove the elements of the crime and establish the corpus delicti, which, in drug cases, is the dangerous drug itself. The integrity of this evidence is maintained through the chain of custody rule, ensuring that the substance presented in court is the same one confiscated from the accused. As the Supreme Court noted:

Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.^[12] The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt.^[13]

The law mandates specific procedures for handling seized drugs, primarily outlined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. These procedures require immediate inventory and photographing of the seized items in the presence of the accused or their representative, an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). All individuals present must sign the inventory, and copies must be provided to them.

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[.]

In the Narvas case, the Supreme Court identified several critical breaches of these mandatory procedures. The police officers’ testimonies were inconsistent regarding the inventory and photographing of the seized items. PO2 Idos testified that SPO1 Bauzon conducted the inventory and took photographs, while SPO1 Bauzon stated he was not present during the buy-bust operation and received the items at the police station. This contradiction cast serious doubt on whether a legitimate inventory was conducted at the scene of the alleged crime.

Further, the Court found that no photographs were taken immediately after the apprehension, as required by law. The photographs presented as evidence were taken at the police station, not at the site of the buy-bust operation. Additionally, the prosecution failed to justify the absence of representatives from the media and the DOJ during the operation, a mandatory requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165. The Court also noted that the marking of the plastic sachets was irregular, lacking the date, time, and place of confiscation, as prescribed in the 2010 Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation. These inconsistencies and procedural lapses significantly undermined the integrity of the evidence presented against Narvas.

The Supreme Court also addressed inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses. PO2 Idos and PO2 Quibrantos gave conflicting accounts of who seized the plastic sachets from Narvas. PO2 Idos identified the plastic sachets with the markings “CVI-2” and “AQ-2,” while PO2 Quibrantos testified that he marked the other two sachets “EQ-1” and “EQ-2.” However, the photograph of the plastic sachets showed that the markings were “AQ-1” and “AQ-2,” not “EQ-1” and “EQ-2.” The Court also highlighted PO2 Idos’ contradictory statements regarding the source of information about Narvas’ alleged drug activities, initially stating it was from a concerned citizen but later claiming it was based on surveillance operations he participated in.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 are mandatory. The Court cited People v. Tomawis, explaining that these requirements protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. As the Supreme Court stated in People v. Mendoza:

without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, “planting” or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous. Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that were evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.^[35]

The Court found that the prosecution failed to acknowledge or justify the police officers’ deviation from the procedures in Section 21 of RA 9165. While Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 allows for noncompliance under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must first recognize and justify any lapses. Since the prosecution did neither, the integrity of the corpus delicti was compromised, warranting Narvas’ acquittal. As the Court stressed in People v. Andaya:

We should remind ourselves that we cannot presume that the accused committed the crimes they have been charged with. The State must fully establish that for us. If the imputation of ill motive to the lawmen is the only means of impeaching them, then that would be the end of our dutiful vigilance to protect our citizenry from false arrests and wrongful incriminations. We are aware that there have been in the past many cases of false arrests and wrongful incriminations, and that should heighten our resolve to strengthen the ramparts of judicial scrutiny.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to trial and appellate courts to exercise extra vigilance in drug cases, and directs the Philippine National Police to investigate this incident and similar cases. Prosecutors are also exhorted to diligently prove compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, and its IRR, which is fundamental in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved Armie Narvas’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering alleged breaches in the chain of custody of seized drugs and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses. The Supreme Court focused on the integrity of the evidence and adherence to procedural safeguards under RA 9165.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the documented and authorized movement and custody of seized drugs from the point of confiscation to presentation in court. It ensures that the evidence presented is the same substance seized from the accused, maintaining its integrity and evidentiary value.
What does Section 21 of RA 9165 require?	Section 21 of RA 9165 mandates the immediate inventory and photographing of seized drugs after confiscation. This must be done in the presence of the accused or their representative, an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative, all of whom must sign the inventory.
Why are the witnesses required in Section 21 important?	The presence of these witnesses is crucial to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drugs. Their presence ensures transparency and integrity in the handling of evidence, safeguarding the rights of the accused.
What happens if there are breaches in the chain of custody?	If there are significant breaches in the chain of custody and the prosecution fails to justify these lapses, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti are compromised. This can lead to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt.
What was the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court acquitted Armie Narvas due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere to the mandatory procedures in Section 21 of RA 9165. The inconsistencies in testimonies, absence of required witnesses, and failure to justify procedural lapses led to reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence.
What is the effect of this ruling on law enforcement?	This ruling serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement to strictly comply with the mandatory procedures outlined in RA 9165. It emphasizes the importance of transparency, integrity, and adherence to due process in drug-related operations to protect the rights of individuals.
What is the role of the prosecutor in drug cases?	The prosecutor has the burden of proving compliance with the procedures outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165. They must recognize and justify any deviations from the prescribed procedure, ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are maintained.
How does the presumption of innocence apply in this case?	The Supreme Court emphasized that every accused person has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This presumption is only overturned when the prosecution proves each element of the crime charged, and it never shifts to the accused.

This Supreme Court decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in drug cases. By requiring strict compliance with the chain of custody rule, the Court reinforces the need to protect individual rights and ensure that convictions are based on reliable and untainted evidence. The Court also reminds lower courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug 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: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ARMIE NARVAS Y BOLASOC, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 241254, July 08, 2019