In a ruling emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, the Supreme Court acquitted Altantor dela Torre of selling illegal drugs. The Court found that the prosecution failed to maintain the integrity of the evidence due to significant breaches in the chain of custody, including improper inventory procedures and the absence of mandatory witnesses. This decision reinforces the need for law enforcement to meticulously follow legal protocols to protect individual rights and prevent wrongful convictions.

Where’s the Proof? How a Botched Buy-Bust Led to an Acquittal

This case revolves around the arrest and subsequent conviction of Altantor dela Torre for allegedly selling 0.5 grams of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) in Dagupan City. The prosecution presented evidence from a buy-bust operation conducted by local police, claiming Dela Torre sold the drugs to an undercover officer. However, the defense argued that the police failed to comply with the strict chain of custody requirements outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This failure, they contended, cast serious doubt on the integrity and identity of the evidence presented against Dela Torre.

At the heart of the matter is Section 21 of RA 9165, which mandates specific procedures for handling seized drugs to ensure their integrity. This section states:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instrument/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; (emphasis added)

These requirements are further detailed in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, specifying that the inventory and photography should occur at the place of the arrest, or under justifiable circumstances, at the nearest police station or office. The law also mandates the presence of specific witnesses: the accused, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the prosecution’s evidence against these stringent requirements. The Court found that the police officers deviated from established procedure in several critical aspects. First, the inventory of the seized drugs was not conducted at the place of arrest but at the barangay hall. The explanation provided by the officers – to avoid commotion – was deemed insufficient justification for this deviation. As the Court stated in People v. Sood, the buy-bust team should have planned the operation to prevent any possible commotion.

The absence of mandatory witnesses further compounded the procedural lapses. Both PO3 Calimlim and SPO1 Ferrer admitted that no representatives from the media or the DOJ were present during the inventory. This omission violated the explicit requirements of RA 9165 and its IRR, raising concerns about the potential for evidence tampering or planting. The presence of these witnesses serves as a crucial safeguard against such abuses. As the Court emphasized in People v. Mendoza, these personalities are an insulation against the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

Perhaps most damaging to the prosecution’s case was the failure to present photographic evidence of the seized drugs. While the prosecution offered pictures, these were merely mugshots of the appellant and a photo of someone writing on a piece of paper, not the required photographs of the seized item itself. This omission constituted a significant break in the chain of custody. In People of the Philippines v. Monir Jafaar, the Court made it clear that failure to present the photograph of the seized sachet as evidence is a fatal break in the chain of custody.

The cumulative effect of these procedural lapses led the Supreme Court to conclude that the chain of custody was irreparably broken. The integrity and identity of the seized drugs could not be assured, undermining the foundation of the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that while a perfect chain of custody may be impossible to achieve in all circumstances, the prosecution must demonstrate strict adherence to the required procedures and provide justifiable reasons for any deviations. The Court stated that,

“Strict adherence to the chain of custody rule must be observed; the precautionary measures employed in every transfer of the seized drug item, proved to a moral certainty. The sheer ease of planting drug evidence vis-à-vis the severity of the imposable penalties in drugs cases compels strict compliance with the chain of custody rule.”

The Court rejected the argument that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions could overcome the clear evidence of procedural violations. The presumption of regularity is a mere disputable presumption that cannot prevail over clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In this case, the evidence of the broken chain of custody was compelling and sufficient to rebut the presumption.

This ruling serves as a potent reminder of the critical importance of following proper procedures in drug cases. The severe penalties associated with drug offenses necessitate strict adherence to safeguards that protect individual rights and prevent wrongful convictions. The Court’s decision underscores that law enforcement must meticulously document every step in the handling of seized drugs, ensuring the presence of required witnesses and maintaining an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court. The absence of these safeguards can be fatal to the prosecution’s case, leading to the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the underlying facts.

FAQs

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 moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	Drugs can be easily tampered with, altered, or substituted. A proper chain of custody ensures that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused.
What are the key steps in the chain of custody?	The key steps include seizure and marking, turnover to the investigating officer, transfer to the forensic chemist for examination, and submission to the court.
What are the requirements for inventory and photography under RA 9165?	The inventory and photography must be done immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused, a media representative, and a DOJ representative.
What happens if the police fail to follow the chain of custody?	Failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence and may lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Can deviations from the chain of custody be excused?	Deviations may be excused if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
What was the main reason for the acquittal in this case?	The main reason was the repeated breach of the chain of custody rule, including improper inventory, absence of mandatory witnesses, and lack of photographic evidence.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling highlights the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect individual rights and prevent wrongful convictions.
Does the presumption of regularity apply even if there are chain of custody issues?	No, the presumption of regularity cannot substitute for compliance with the chain of custody rule, especially when there is clear evidence to the contrary.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Dela Torre underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance in drug cases. It serves as a cautionary tale for law enforcement, emphasizing that shortcuts and deviations from established protocol can have severe consequences, including the dismissal of otherwise valid charges.

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: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ALTANTOR DELA TORRE Y CABALAR, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019