In People v. Crispin Mamuyac, Jr., the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant due to reasonable doubt, emphasizing the crucial importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, raising significant questions about the integrity and identity of the evidence presented. This ruling reinforces the necessity for law enforcement to strictly comply with procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the reliability of evidence in drug cases, especially when dealing with small quantities of narcotics.

When Pocketing Evidence Undermines Justice: A Drug Case Under Scrutiny

The case revolves around Crispin Mamuyac, Jr., who was convicted of selling 0.0343 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “shabu,” during a buy-bust operation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both affirmed his conviction, but the Supreme Court (SC) reversed these decisions, citing critical lapses in the handling of evidence. The core legal question centers on whether the prosecution adequately proved the chain of custody of the seized drug, as required by Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of PO1 Alexson Rosal, who acted as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation. According to PO1 Rosal, after the exchange of money for the plastic sachet, he executed a pre-arranged signal to alert his fellow officers. The appellant allegedly sensed he was dealing with a police officer and attempted to flee. PO2 John-John Garan, another officer involved in the operation, testified that he recovered the buy-bust money from the appellant. However, a significant point of contention arose from PO1 Rosal’s admission that he placed the seized plastic sachet in his pocket after the transaction. This action raised concerns about the integrity of the evidence and whether the substance examined in the laboratory was indeed the same one seized from the appellant.

Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. The law requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. These individuals are required to sign the inventory, and each is given a copy. The purpose of this provision is to ensure transparency and accountability in handling drug evidence, thereby preventing tampering or substitution. Prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640) on 15 July 2014, Section 21 of RA 9165 read:

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 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 this case, the Supreme Court found several deviations from the prescribed procedure. First, the marking and inventory of the seized sachet were not done immediately at the place of arrest but at the police station. Second, Barangay Chairman Precidio Caliva Palalay denied signing the inventory receipt, casting doubt on the presence of a required witness. Third, PO1 Rosal’s act of placing the seized sachet in his pocket raised serious concerns about potential tampering. Fourth, inconsistencies in the testimonies of PO1 Rosal and PO2 Garan regarding who delivered the sachet to the crime laboratory further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for exacting compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, particularly when dealing with miniscule amounts of narcotics. Citing People v. Holgado, the Court underscored that the small quantity of shabu seized (0.0343 gram) heightened the risk of tampering or substitution. The Court then reiterated the importance of strictly adhering to the chain of custody rule to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. This is because “the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives.”

The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers and handling of evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring that the integrity and identity of the evidence are preserved. The links in the chain that must be established are: seizure and marking, transfer to the investigating officer, transfer to the forensic chemist for examination, and submission of the marked drug to the court. These links ensure that the item offered in court is the same item recovered from the accused.

The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution failed to provide justifiable reasons for not complying with the required procedures, such as the immediate marking and inventory of the seized items at the place of arrest. The Court also found that PO1 Rosal’s explanation that he followed the Chief of Police’s orders to mark the item at the police station was insufficient. The absence of a representative from the media or the DOJ during the inventory further weakened the prosecution’s case. These lapses, combined with PO1 Rosal’s act of placing the seized shabu in his pocket, created a significant doubt as to whether the evidence presented in court was the same substance seized from the appellant.

The Court then reiterated its mandatory policy to prove chain of custody under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, as outlined in People v. Lim:

In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21(1) of RA 9165, as amended, and its IRR.

In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.

If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause.

If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.

Without justifiable reason for the absence of any of the three witnesses, there is doubt as to whether the shabu allegedly seized from the appellant is the same shabu subjected to laboratory examination and presented in the RTC.

Given the multiple breaks in the chain of custody, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving guilt rests on the prosecution, and the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty cannot outweigh the presumption of innocence of the accused. As such, the Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted Crispin Mamuyac, Jr.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved the chain of custody of the seized drug, as required by Republic Act No. 9165, ensuring the integrity and identity of the evidence.
Why did the Supreme Court acquit Crispin Mamuyac, Jr.?	The Supreme Court acquitted him due to reasonable doubt, citing several lapses in the chain of custody, including the improper handling of evidence and the failure to comply with the witness requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the sequence of transfers and handling of evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring that the integrity and identity of the evidence are preserved.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official, who must sign the inventory.
What was the significance of PO1 Rosal putting the seized shabu in his pocket?	This action raised serious concerns about potential tampering or substitution of the evidence, as the shabu was not properly secured and could have been compromised during the time it was in his pocket.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, it casts doubt on the integrity and identity of the evidence, which can lead to the exclusion of the evidence and potentially the acquittal of the accused.
What is the effect of having a small amount of drugs involved in the case?	When a small amount of drugs is involved, the need for strict compliance with the chain of custody rule becomes even more critical, as the risk of tampering or substitution is heightened.
What is the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty?	The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes law enforcement officers perform their duties properly. However, this presumption cannot override the presumption of innocence of the accused and the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This case underscores the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in RA 9165 to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the reliability of evidence in drug cases. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule and to maintain transparency and accountability in handling drug evidence. The failure to do so can result in the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the perceived guilt.

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. Mamuyac, Jr., G.R. No. 234035, August 19, 2019