In drug-related cases, strict adherence to legal procedures is paramount. The Supreme Court has emphasized that when law enforcement fails to properly follow protocol in handling evidence, particularly concerning the chain of custody, it can lead to the acquittal of the accused. This ruling reinforces the necessity for authorities to meticulously comply with the requirements of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, to safeguard individual rights and ensure the integrity of the legal process.

Unexplained Lapses: How a Buy-Bust Operation’s Shortcomings Led to an Acquittal

In People of the Philippines vs. Alvin Velasco y Huevos, G.R. No. 219174, February 21, 2018, the accused, Alvin Velasco, was charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the police. However, the Supreme Court found that the arresting officers failed to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, which outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs. This failure ultimately led to Velasco’s acquittal.

The core issue revolved around the handling of evidence following Velasco’s arrest. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, must physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These individuals are required to sign the inventory, and each must receive a copy. In Velasco’s case, these procedures were not followed at the scene of the arrest. Instead, the inventory, marking, and photographing of the seized drugs were only done later at the police station, and only in the presence of the barangay chairman. The Court highlighted this lapse, stating that the police officers provided no justification for their deviation from the prescribed 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.” – Section 21, paragraph 1, of R.A. No. 9165

The importance of adhering to Section 21 lies in ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. These procedures are designed to prevent contamination, substitution, or loss of evidence, thereby protecting the rights of the accused. The chain of custody, which refers to the sequence of transfers of the evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, must be unbroken. Any unexplained gaps in the chain of custody cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence. The Court emphasized that while the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provide a saving mechanism for non-compliance, it requires the apprehending team to justify the non-compliance.

The absence of a justifiable reason for not following the required procedures proved fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Court pointed out that the police officers had ample time to ensure the presence of media and DOJ representatives, given that they had conducted a surveillance operation for two weeks prior to the buy-bust. Their failure to comply with the procedural safeguards, coupled with their lack of explanation, raised significant doubts about the identity and integrity of the evidence. The Supreme Court’s decision underscored the principle that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty does not apply when there is a clear failure to comply with mandatory procedures and no reasonable explanation is provided. The Court stated:

“The regularity of the performance of official duty on the part of the arresting officers during the buy-bust operation and its aftermath cannot be presumed when the records do not contain any explanation why the various requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not complied with.”

Furthermore, the ruling places the burden on the State to justify any lapses or gaps in the chain of custody. The Court reiterated that without such justification, the integrity of the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, is not preserved, leading to reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. In Velasco’s case, the prosecution failed to meet this burden, resulting in his acquittal. This decision aligns with numerous Supreme Court rulings that strictly enforce the procedural requirements of R.A. No. 9165. These rulings collectively aim to ensure that individuals are not unjustly convicted based on unreliable evidence or flawed procedures. The court also noted that in every prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs prohibited under R.A. No. 9165, the State, not the accused, carries the heavy burden of justifying at the trial the lapses or gaps in the chain of custody. Without the justification, the chain of custody is not shown to be unbroken.

This is further emphasized by the court with the following statement:

“In every prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs prohibited under R.A. No. 9165, the State, not the accused, carried the heavy burden of justifying at the trial the lapses or gaps in the chain of custody. Without the justification, the chain of custody is not shown to be unbroken; hence, the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti was not preserved. The result is that a doubt about whether the evidence presented to the trial court was the substance that was the subject of the illegal sale arose. The accused could not be justifiably found and held guilty of the offense charged in the face of such doubt. The acquittal of the accused should follow.”

The acquittal in the case against Alvin Velasco highlights the critical importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in drug cases. Law enforcement officers must meticulously follow the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to ensure the integrity of evidence and protect the rights of the accused. Failure to do so can lead to the exclusion of evidence and, as in this case, the acquittal of the defendant.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the failure of the arresting officers to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 warranted the acquittal of the accused.
What does Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 require?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to immediately inventory and photograph seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
What is the chain of custody?	The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers of evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring its integrity and authenticity.
What happens if the police fail to follow Section 21?	Non-compliance can lead to the exclusion of evidence and the acquittal of the accused, unless the police can justify the non-compliance and prove the integrity of the evidence was maintained.
Who has the burden of proof in justifying non-compliance?	The burden of proof rests on the State to justify any lapses or gaps in the chain of custody and to demonstrate that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
What is the significance of media and DOJ representatives?	Their presence is intended to ensure transparency and prevent tampering with evidence, thereby safeguarding the rights of the accused.
What is corpus delicti?	Corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, which in drug cases is the actual illegal substance that forms the basis of the charges.
Can a conviction stand if there are doubts about the evidence?	No, the accused cannot be found guilty if there are reasonable doubts about whether the evidence presented in court was the same substance involved in the alleged illegal sale.

This case serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies about the importance of adhering to legal procedures when handling drug-related cases. The failure to comply with these procedures can have significant consequences, including the acquittal of the accused and the undermining of public trust in the justice system. Strict adherence to the law is essential to ensure fairness and protect the rights of all individuals.

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 vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 219174, February 21, 2018