In drug-related cases, strict adherence to the procedures outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, concerning the handling and custody of seized evidence, is paramount. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that justifiable deviations from these procedures do not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of evidence, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. This ruling underscores the importance of maintaining the chain of custody to ensure the reliability of evidence presented in court, which ultimately determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. The failure to strictly comply with the mandated procedures becomes inconsequential if the prosecution can demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been duly preserved.

When a Buy-Bust Turns to Doubt: Can Shabu’s Integrity Save the Case?

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Aldrin Berdadero y Armamento (G.R. No. 179710, June 29, 2010) revolves around an alleged buy-bust operation where Aldrin Berdadero was accused of selling 0.04 grams of shabu, also known as methamphetamine hydrochloride, in Batangas City. Following his arrest, Berdadero contested the legality of the operation, arguing that the police failed to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165. Specifically, he pointed out the absence of a physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs in his presence, or in the presence of his counsel, a media representative, and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). The central legal question was whether these procedural lapses invalidated the seizure and subsequent conviction, or if the prosecution could still prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt by establishing the integrity of the evidence.

At trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of PO3 Danilo F. Balmes and PO2 Edwalberto M. Villas, who detailed the buy-bust operation conducted based on information received about Berdadero’s alleged drug-selling activities. They testified that the informant acted as the poseur-buyer, purchasing two plastic sachets of shabu from Berdadero in exchange for marked money. After the transaction, Berdadero was arrested, and the seized items were marked, inventoried, and submitted for laboratory examination, which confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense, on the other hand, claimed that Berdadero was a victim of a frame-up, denying the sale and alleging that he was arrested without explanation by individuals who falsely identified themselves as locksmiths. The Regional Trial Court convicted Berdadero, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized that while strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is desirable, non-compliance does not automatically render the seizure and custody of evidence void and invalid. The Court cited Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which provides that:

(a) 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: Provided, further, that non-compliance with 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 seizure of and custody over the said items.

The Court explained that the crucial factor is whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. This is ensured through the chain of custody, which requires the prosecution to account for the continuous whereabouts of the evidence from the time it came into the possession of the police officers until it was presented in court. The chain of custody serves to eliminate unnecessary doubts about the identity of the evidence, particularly the corpus delicti, which is the body of the crime or the actual substance that constitutes the offense. The integrity of the corpus delicti is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had sufficiently established the chain of custody. The testimonies of the police officers demonstrated a clear and unbroken chain of possession, marking, handling, and testing of the seized shabu. PO3 Balmes marked the sachets with his initials and the date of the arrest, which were later confirmed by PO2 Villas. The evidence was then recorded in the police blotter by PO1 Delos Reyes and forwarded to the Investigation Division. PO3 Sergio del Mundo prepared the request for laboratory tests, and PO2 Villas personally delivered the specimens to the crime laboratory. Insp. Donna Villa P. Huelgas conducted the laboratory examination and confirmed that the specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The results were then returned to PO2 Villas and PO3 Del Mundo, completing the chain. Given this, the Court held that the prosecution had successfully preserved and established the identity of the corpus delicti.

The Court further addressed Berdadero’s argument that the buy-bust operation was invalid because it was conducted without the involvement of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The Court clarified that Section 86 of RA 9165 designates PDEA as the lead agency in drug-related cases but does not diminish the authority of other law enforcement bodies to conduct similar operations. The provision primarily serves an administrative purpose, centralizing law enforcement efforts to enhance the efficacy of the law against dangerous drugs. Therefore, the PNP’s involvement in the buy-bust operation was deemed valid.

Finally, the appellant argued that the failure to present the poseur-buyer was fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is only fatal if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction. In this case, the testimonies of PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas sufficiently established that Berdadero sold a dangerous drug, making the poseur-buyer’s testimony dispensable. The Court emphasized that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Thus, the Supreme Court found no reason to overturn the lower courts’ findings, ultimately affirming Berdadero’s conviction.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether procedural lapses in the handling of seized drugs, specifically the failure to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the evidence in the presence of the accused, invalidated the seizure and subsequent conviction for illegal drug sale.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the sequence of steps that account for the continuous whereabouts of evidence, from the time of seizure to its presentation in court. This process ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
What does the term corpus delicti mean in the context of illegal drug cases?	Corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, which in illegal drug cases, is the actual dangerous drug itself. Establishing the identity and integrity of the drug is essential for a conviction.
Is PDEA the only agency authorized to conduct buy-bust operations?	No, while PDEA is the lead agency in drug-related cases, other law enforcement bodies like the PNP also have the authority to conduct buy-bust operations, as long as they coordinate with PDEA.
What happens if the poseur-buyer is not presented as a witness?	The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is only fatal to the prosecution’s case if there are no other eyewitnesses to the drug transaction. If other credible witnesses, such as police officers, can testify to the sale, the case can still proceed.
What is the significance of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. It mandates that the apprehending team conduct a physical inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused and other witnesses.
What is the effect of non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165?	Non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of evidence if the prosecution can demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What was the ruling of the Supreme Court in this case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Aldrin Berdadero, holding that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of custody and that the procedural lapses did not invalidate the seizure of evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Berdadero clarifies the application of Section 21 of RA 9165, emphasizing that the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs is paramount. While strict compliance with procedural requirements is preferred, the Court recognizes that justifiable deviations may occur. In such cases, the prosecution must demonstrate that the chain of custody was maintained, ensuring the reliability of the evidence presented in court. This ruling strikes a balance between procedural rigor and the pursuit of justice in drug-related 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 vs. Aldrin Berdadero y Armamento, G.R. No. 179710, June 29, 2010