The Supreme Court’s decision in *People v. Raul Manansala* emphasizes the critical importance of strictly adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. The Court acquitted Manansala due to the police officers’ unjustified deviations from the prescribed procedures for handling seized drugs, specifically failing to properly document and preserve the evidence. This ruling serves as a reminder that law enforcement must diligently follow protocol to protect individual rights, even when pursuing legitimate anti-drug efforts; failure to do so can undermine the integrity of the evidence and lead to an acquittal.

Drug Busts and Broken Chains: When Procedure Protects the Accused

Raul Manansala was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) for the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, also known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” These charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers in Calamba City, where Manansala was allegedly caught selling *shabu* (methamphetamine hydrochloride). A subsequent search of Manansala also yielded another plastic sachet of the same substance, leading to the charge of illegal possession. Manansala denied the charges, claiming he was at home doing laundry when he was apprehended, and that the evidence was planted.

The RTC and CA found Manansala guilty, stating that the prosecution had sufficiently established the elements of both crimes and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. Manansala appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning whether the CA correctly upheld his conviction. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly maintained, ensuring the integrity of the evidence presented against Manansala.

The Supreme Court, in reversing the lower courts’ decisions, emphasized that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, requiring the appellate court to correct errors whether assigned or unassigned. To secure a conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, the consideration, the delivery of the thing sold, and the payment. For Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish that the accused possessed a prohibited drug, the possession was unauthorized by law, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. In both instances, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty.

Central to this case is Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which outlines the procedure police officers must follow when handling seized drugs. Prior to its amendment by RA 10640, it required 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 or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. These individuals are required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination.

The Supreme Court has previously stressed the importance of these requirements in *People v. Mendoza*, stating:

[W]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, ‘planting’ or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [RA] 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the *corpus delicti*, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the x x x presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.

While strict compliance may not always be possible due to varied field conditions, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of RA 10640, provide that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 under justifiable grounds will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items, so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must prove that there is justifiable ground for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

In this case, the Court found that the police officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule. While the prosecution showed that the items were marked by PO2 Magadia immediately upon confiscation, this was not done in the presence of any elected public official, nor a representative from the DOJ or the media. No justifiable ground was provided to explain this lapse. The records also lacked evidence showing a physical inventory of the seized items or photographs taken at the time of seizure. The prosecution admitted these lapses, with PO2 Magadia acknowledging the non-compliance, citing a “commotion” and the lack of a camera as reasons.

The Court found these explanations insufficient. The mere marking of seized drugs, unsupported by a physical inventory, photographs, and the absence of the required personalities, does not comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165. The barangay blotter, a mere recording of the incident, cannot substitute for a physical inventory. Entries in official records are only *prima facie* evidence. The absence of a camera, without further explanation, is not a justifiable reason for non-compliance. The alleged “commotion” was also deemed insufficient to dispense with the proper inventory procedure.

The Court reiterated that the procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. Earnest efforts must be exerted to comply with the mandated procedure. The failure to do so compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the *corpus delicti*, leading to Manansala’s acquittal. This case reinforces the need for law enforcement to meticulously follow the chain of custody rule to uphold the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of evidence.

The Supreme Court ended with a reminder that as critical as the campaign against illegal drugs may be, it cannot overshadow the constitutional rights of every individual, including those accused of crimes.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the police officers properly followed the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165 when handling the seized drugs, ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.
Why was Manansala acquitted?	Manansala was acquitted because the police officers failed to comply with the mandatory procedures for handling seized drugs, specifically failing to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items in the presence of required witnesses.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the documented process of tracking the seized drugs from the moment of confiscation to presentation in court, ensuring the integrity and preservation of the evidence.
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, an elected public official, and representatives from the DOJ and media.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	If the police fail to comply with Section 21, the prosecution must provide justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved; otherwise, the evidence may be deemed inadmissible.
What is the significance of *People v. Mendoza* in this case?	*People v. Mendoza* emphasized the importance of having representatives from the media, DOJ, or an elected public official present during the seizure and marking of drugs to prevent tampering or planting of evidence.
Can the police be excused for not following Section 21?	Yes, but only if they can provide justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved despite the procedural lapses.
What is the role of the prosecution in drug cases?	The prosecution has the duty to prove compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and to justify any deviations from the prescribed procedure to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the *corpus delicti*.

This case underscores the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures in drug-related cases. Law enforcement officers must prioritize compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 to safeguard the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of the evidence presented in court. Failure to do so can have significant consequences, including the acquittal of the accused, regardless of 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. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018