In a ruling that underscores the critical importance of adhering to proper procedures in drug-related cases, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Abdulwahid Pundugar for violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, specifically for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. While affirming the conviction, the case highlighted the necessity of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody of seized items, as mandated by law, to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence presented in court, and prevent any doubts concerning its identity. This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to diligently follow the prescribed protocols to avoid compromising the prosecution’s case.

Buy-Bust in a Muslim Squatter Area: Did Police Missteps Taint the Drug Evidence?

The case began with a buy-bust operation conducted by the Muntinlupa City Anti-illegal Drugs unit. Acting on information about Abdulwahid Pundugar, also known as “Tatay,” dealing drugs in Purok 7, Brgy. Alabang, a team was formed. PO2 Domingo Julaton III acted as the poseur-buyer, and after coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the operation was set in motion. PO2 Julaton, accompanied by an informant, approached Pundugar and purchased a sachet of shabu for P500. Immediately after the transaction, PO2 Julaton signaled to his backup, PO2 Elbert Ocampo, leading to Pundugar’s arrest. A subsequent search revealed four more sachets of shabu in Pundugar’s possession. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and later confirmed by PSI Mark Alain B. Ballesteros, a Forensic Chemist, to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride. Pundugar, however, denied selling or possessing the drugs, claiming he was framed.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Pundugar guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a decision that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Pundugar then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the police officers did not comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, resulting in a broken chain of custody. This provision outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs, from initial seizure to presentation in court, to ensure the integrity of the evidence.

At the heart of Pundugar’s appeal was the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165. This section mandates a specific procedure for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs, including immediate marking and inventory of the seized items at the crime scene. The law states:

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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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 seizures and custody over said items.

In Pundugar’s case, the marking and inventory were not done immediately at the crime scene but at the police station. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that strict compliance with these procedures is not always mandatory. The primary concern is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, which must be proven to establish the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. The Court cited People v. Resurreccion, stating that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.

Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that the apprehending officers had justifiable reasons for not marking and inventorying the items at the crime scene. The buy-bust operation took place in a squatters area with a large Muslim population. The police feared a commotion and possible retaliation, especially since Pundugar was Muslim. Moreover, a crowd was already gathering, as testified by Pundugar’s daughter. These circumstances made it more practical and safer to conduct the marking and inventory at the police station.

Pundugar also argued that the absence of representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected government official during the inventory and photography was fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court addressed this issue by referring to the saving clause in Section 21 of RA 9165, which states that noncompliance with these requirements, under justifiable grounds, does not render the seizure void if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

In this case, the prosecution explained that they could not find any available representatives from the media, the DOJ, or an elected public official and that they were pressed for time. The Court found these reasons justifiable. It emphasized that the chain of custody of the seized items remained unbroken. PO2 Julaton marked the items, brought them to the police station, and then forwarded them to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where PSI Ballesteros confirmed they contained shabu. During the trial, PO2 Julaton positively identified the items as those seized from Pundugar. The Court held that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody, thus preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs.

The Supreme Court also dismissed Pundugar’s defense of denial and frame-up. The Court noted that such defenses are weak, especially when unsubstantiated by credible evidence. Pundugar was caught in flagrante delicto, meaning in the act of committing a crime, during a legitimate buy-bust operation. The penalties imposed on Pundugar were also deemed appropriate under RA 9165. For illegal sale of dangerous drugs, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, he received an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and a fine of P300,000.00. As the penalties were within the ranges prescribed by law, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision.

FAQs

What were the charges against Abdulwahid Pundugar?	Abdulwahid Pundugar was charged with and convicted of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), specifically for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs (shabu).
What is a “buy-bust” operation?	A “buy-bust” operation is a law enforcement technique where police officers pose as buyers of illegal substances to catch drug dealers in the act of selling drugs. It is a common method used to apprehend individuals involved in drug trafficking.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule requires law enforcement to meticulously document and preserve the integrity of drug evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. This process ensures that the evidence is authentic and has not been tampered with.
What is Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedures for handling seized dangerous drugs, including immediate marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items in the presence of certain witnesses. This section aims to maintain the integrity of the evidence.
What are the required witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs?	Prior to amendment by RA 10640, Section 21 required the presence of the accused (or their representative), an elected public official, and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the inventory and photography of seized drug items.
Can a drug conviction stand if there is a failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of RA 9165?	Yes, a conviction can still stand if the prosecution can demonstrate justifiable grounds for non-compliance with Section 21 and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved, despite the deviations.
What defenses did Abdulwahid Pundugar raise in court?	Abdulwahid Pundugar denied the charges, claiming that he was framed by the police. He argued that he neither sold nor possessed the drugs and that the police planted the evidence against him.
What penalties were imposed on Abdulwahid Pundugar?	Pundugar was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Additionally, he received an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and a fine of P300,000.00 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Pundugar reinforces the importance of maintaining the chain of custody in drug-related cases. While strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is preferred, the Court recognizes that justifiable circumstances may warrant deviations from the prescribed procedures, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. This case serves as a valuable reminder to law enforcement agencies to diligently adhere to proper protocols, ensuring that drug cases are handled fairly and justly.

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. ABDULWAHID PUNDUGAR, G.R. No. 214779, February 07, 2018