In People v. Macapundag, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, Puyat Macapundag, due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere strictly to the chain of custody rule for seized drugs, as outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court emphasized that the police officers’ failure to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after confiscation, in the presence of the accused and other required witnesses, compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. This ruling underscores the importance of meticulous compliance with procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the reliability of evidence in drug-related cases.

Popoy’s Predicament: When a Buy-Bust Goes Bust on Procedure

The case of People of the Philippines versus Puyat Macapundag arose from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Caloocan City Police. Acting on a tip, law enforcement officers targeted Macapundag, known as “Popoy,” for allegedly selling shabu. During the operation, PO3 George Ardedon, posing as a buyer, purchased a sachet of ephedrine from Macapundag. Subsequently, arresting officers seized three additional sachets of the same substance from Macapundag’s person. These events led to charges for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, specifically for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. This case turns on whether the police followed the strict chain of custody procedures mandated by law when handling the seized drugs.

At the heart of this legal battle lies Section 21 of RA 9165, which mandates a stringent procedure for handling seized drugs to ensure their integrity and evidentiary value. This provision requires that immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. These witnesses must sign the copies of the inventory, and they must be given a copy of the same. The seized drugs must then be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four hours from confiscation for examination. The purpose of this detailed procedure is to eliminate any doubt or suspicion regarding the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, safeguarding against tampering, alteration, or substitution.

In Macapundag’s case, the prosecution presented evidence that PO3 Ardedon and SPO1 Victoriano marked the seized items immediately at the place of arrest. However, the prosecution’s case faltered because they failed to provide evidence that the police officers followed key requirements stipulated in Section 21 of RA 9165. The court noted a lack of evidence that the police officers inventoried and photographed the seized sachets in the presence of Macapundag or his representative. The records were also silent concerning the presence of other mandatory witnesses, such as a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), an elected public official, and a member of the press. Compounding these lapses, the prosecution did not offer any inventory of the seized items or photographs thereof as evidence, undermining their claim of compliance with the law.

The Supreme Court referenced earlier rulings that offered a degree of flexibility in adhering to Section 21 under justifiable circumstances. In People v. Sanchez, the Court acknowledged that strict compliance may not always be feasible under varied field conditions. The court ruled that non-compliance would be excused if the prosecution could demonstrate justifiable grounds for the lapse, and, importantly, that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. However, the Court emphasized that the prosecution carries the burden of proving such justifiable cause.

Building on this principle, in People v. Almorfe, the Court stressed that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and demonstrate that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved. The Court further clarified in People v. De Guzman, that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The Court will not presume the existence of such grounds.

The Supreme Court found the prosecution’s silence on these critical points to be a fatal flaw in the case against Macapundag. The prosecution did not provide any explanation for why the inventory and photograph of the seized evidence were not made at the place of seizure and arrest or at the police station, as required by the IRR. The State also failed to explain the absence of a representative from the DOJ, the media, and an elected public official to witness the inventory and receive copies of the same. This failure to account for the procedural lapses led the Court to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised, warranting Macapundag’s acquittal.

The Court reiterated the established doctrine that the procedure outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a mere technicality. The court, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the rights of the accused and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, held that the prosecution’s failure to comply with these mandatory procedures created reasonable doubt, leading to Macapundag’s acquittal.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165, to ensure their integrity and evidentiary value. The Court focused on the police’s failure to comply with mandatory inventory and photography requirements.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the prescribed procedure for handling seized drugs, from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court, ensuring that their identity and integrity are preserved. This includes proper documentation, handling, and storage of the evidence to prevent tampering or substitution.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and an elected public official. The seized drugs must also be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours for examination.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Failure to comply with Section 21 raises doubts about the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, which can lead to the acquittal of the accused. However, the Court may excuse non-compliance if the prosecution can prove justifiable grounds for the lapses and demonstrate that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
What is the importance of having witnesses present during the inventory?	The presence of witnesses from the media, the DOJ, and an elected public official ensures transparency and accountability in the handling of seized drugs, preventing tampering or manipulation of evidence. Their signatures on the inventory serve as verification of the items seized and the procedures followed.
What is the role of the prosecution in drug cases?	The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, which includes establishing the elements of the crime and presenting credible evidence. In drug cases, the prosecution must demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody and compliance with procedural safeguards to ensure the reliability of the evidence.
Can a drug conviction be overturned on appeal?	Yes, a drug conviction can be overturned on appeal if the appellate court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt or that there were significant errors in the trial court’s judgment. This can include violations of the accused’s constitutional rights or procedural lapses in the handling of evidence.
What is the effect of an acquittal in a criminal case?	An acquittal means that the accused is found not guilty of the crime charged and is free from criminal liability. The accused cannot be tried again for the same offense, and any penalties or restrictions imposed as a result of the initial conviction are lifted.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Macapundag serves as a potent reminder of the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. Law enforcement agencies must prioritize meticulous compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 to ensure the integrity of evidence, protect the rights of the accused, and uphold the principles of justice. This ruling underscores that even in the pursuit of combating illegal drugs, the ends do not justify the means, and the rule of law must always prevail.

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. PUYAT MACAPUNDAG Y LABAO, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017