In People v. Jennefer Carin y Donoga, the Supreme Court acquitted the defendant due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere to the strict procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Court emphasized that the chain of custody of evidence must be meticulously maintained to preserve the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, and failure to do so raises reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.

Buy-Bust Blues: Can Sloppy Procedure Sink a Drug Conviction?

Jennefer Carin y Donoga was charged with selling 0.02 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) during a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented testimonies from police officers who claimed that Donoga sold the drugs to a poseur-buyer. However, the defense argued that the police failed to follow the mandatory procedures for handling and documenting the seized evidence. The trial court convicted Donoga, relying on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower courts’ decisions, acquitting Donoga due to significant lapses in the handling of evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the prosecution’s failure to comply with Section 21, paragraph (1) of Article II of R.A. 9165, which requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. This provision is crucial in ensuring the integrity of the evidence and preventing tampering or substitution. In this case, the prosecution admitted that no photographs were taken during the operation, a clear violation of the mandatory procedure.

“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[.]”

The Court also noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. PO3 Lagasca claimed to have seen Donoga enter her house during the transaction, while Mergal, the poseur-buyer, only stated that she might have entered the house. Furthermore, despite Lagasca’s claim, the police team did not search the house, raising doubts about the thoroughness and credibility of their operation. These inconsistencies, coupled with the failure to follow proper procedure, cast serious doubt on the integrity of the evidence presented against Donoga.

Moreover, the Court emphasized the importance of maintaining a clear chain of custody for the seized drugs. The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution establish an unbroken trail of accountability for the evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. This ensures that the evidence is not tampered with or altered in any way. In this case, the letter-request for laboratory examination was made by the Chief of the Drug Enforcement Unit, SPO4 Arsenio A. Mangulabnan, but it was delivered by Danilo G. Molina of MADAC, whose participation in the operation was not reflected in the records. Neither Molina nor PO1 Inopia, who allegedly requested the drug test and laboratory examination, testified in court, creating a gap in the chain of custody.

The Court cited People v. Balagat, where it acquitted the appellant because the specimen examined by the forensic chemist was delivered by someone who did not appear to be part of the buy-bust team and did not testify in court. The Court held that the prosecution’s failure to show that there was no breach in the chain of custody of the specimen was sufficient to warrant acquittal. In Donoga’s case, the unexplained participation of Molina and the failure to present him or Inopia as witnesses raised similar concerns about the integrity of the evidence.

The Supreme Court reiterated that strict compliance with the proper procedure is required due to the nature of illegal drugs, which are easily susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution. While lapses in procedure are not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case, justifiable grounds for such lapses must be proffered and proven. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide any explanation for its procedural lapses, further undermining its case against Donoga. Ultimately, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove Donoga’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to her acquittal.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the chain of custody and complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under R.A. 9165 to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires the prosecution to establish an unbroken trail of accountability for the evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, to ensure its integrity and prevent tampering.
What does Section 21 of R.A. 9165 require?	Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.
Why is it important to follow the procedures in R.A. 9165?	It is important to follow the procedures in R.A. 9165 to ensure the integrity of the evidence, prevent tampering or substitution, and protect the rights of the accused.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165?	Failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 may result in the inadmissibility of the evidence and the acquittal of the accused, especially if the prosecution cannot provide justifiable grounds for the lapses.
What was the Court’s basis for acquitting the accused in this case?	The Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
How does this case affect future drug cases?	This case serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to strictly comply with the procedural requirements of R.A. 9165 in order to ensure the successful prosecution of drug cases.
What is the significance of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties?	The presumption of regularity can be overturned when there is evidence of lapses in procedure or inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Jennefer Carin y Donoga underscores the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in R.A. 9165. Law enforcement agencies must ensure strict compliance with these procedures to maintain the integrity of evidence and uphold the rights of the accused. Failure to do so can have significant consequences, potentially leading to the acquittal of individuals charged with drug offenses.

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, APPELLEE, VS. JENNEFER CARIN Y DONOGA @ MAE-ANN, APPELLANT, G.R. No. 185378, September 27, 2010