In drug-related offenses, maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized substances is paramount. The Supreme Court, in People v. Roy Magsano, acquitted the accused due to the failure of law enforcement to adhere strictly to the procedural safeguards outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, particularly concerning the presence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory and handling of seized drugs. This ruling emphasizes the importance of meticulous adherence to protocol in drug cases to protect individual liberties and ensure the integrity of evidence presented in court.

Flawed Procedure: When a Buy-Bust Goes Bust

The case of People of the Philippines v. Roy Magsano y Sagauinit stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) in Makati City. Magsano was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, specifically methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Magsano sold a sachet of shabu to an undercover police officer and was found in possession of two additional sachets during a subsequent search.

However, the defense contested the integrity of the evidence, alleging that the proper procedures for handling seized drugs were not followed. Specifically, the defense pointed to the absence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the inventory of the seized items, a requirement stipulated in Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, also known as “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” This law outlines the chain of custody rule, which is crucial in drug cases.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially convicted Magsano, a decision that the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed. Both courts found that the prosecution had established the essential elements of the crimes charged and that the chain of custody was sufficiently maintained. However, the Supreme Court (SC) took a different view, emphasizing the critical importance of strict compliance with the procedural requirements of RA 9165. The SC underscored the necessity of having representatives from the media or the DOJ present during the inventory to ensure transparency and prevent the possibility of evidence tampering.

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision was Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, which details the procedure for handling seized drugs. The provision requires that immediately after seizure and confiscation, a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be conducted in the presence of the accused or their representative, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS), or the media.

The purpose of these requirements is to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, safeguarding against switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. In this case, it was undisputed that representatives from the media and the DOJ were not present during the inventory, and the police officers failed to provide a justifiable explanation for their absence.

The Supreme Court cited People v. Mendoza, where it stressed the importance of these witnesses, stating:

Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [NPS/DOJ], [and] 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.

Acknowledging that strict compliance with Section 21 is not always possible, the Court also recognized the “saving clause” in the law. This clause, as implemented in the IRR and further emphasized by RA 10640, states that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, under justifiable grounds, will not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the seized items, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

However, the Court emphasized that for this saving clause to apply, the prosecution must: (a) provide justifiable grounds for the non-compliance; and (b) demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, as the Court cannot presume the existence of such grounds. 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 that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved.

In the case of Magsano, the prosecution failed to provide any plausible explanation for the absence of the mandatory witnesses during the inventory. The Court noted that the police officers themselves admitted that no representatives from the media or the DOJ were present. Because of this unjustified non-compliance with the prescribed procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs purportedly seized from Magsano was deemed questionable.

The Supreme Court also addressed the argument that Magsano only raised his objections regarding the chain of custody for the first time on appeal. Citing People v. Miranda, the Court clarified that this did not preclude the appellate court from passing upon the issue, as an appeal in criminal cases confers upon the court full jurisdiction to examine the record and revise the judgment. Errors in an appealed judgment of a criminal case, even if not specifically assigned, may be corrected motu proprio by the court if the consideration of these errors is necessary to arrive at a just resolution of the case.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to provide justifiable grounds for the police officers’ non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended. As a result, reasonable doubt persisted regarding the conviction of the accused. Because the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised, Magsano’s acquittal was deemed necessary.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in RA 9165. The absence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs, without justifiable explanation, can lead to the acquittal of the accused. This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies of the need for strict compliance with the law to ensure the integrity of evidence and protect individual liberties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the failure of law enforcement to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically the absence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs, warranted the acquittal of the accused.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the documented process of tracking seized evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and authenticity of the evidence by accounting for every person who handled it.
Who are the mandatory witnesses required during the inventory of seized drugs?	The mandatory witnesses are the accused or their representative, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media.
What is the “saving clause” in Section 21 of RA 9165?	The “saving clause” allows for non-compliance with the strict requirements of Section 21 under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
What must the prosecution prove to invoke the “saving clause”?	The prosecution must prove (a) justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and (b) that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
Why is the presence of mandatory witnesses important?	The presence of mandatory witnesses ensures transparency and prevents the possibility of evidence tampering, switching, or planting, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the evidence.
Can an accused raise objections to the chain of custody for the first time on appeal?	Yes, an accused can raise objections to the chain of custody for the first time on appeal, as the appellate court has full jurisdiction to examine the record and revise the judgment.
What is the corpus delicti in a drug case?	The corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, which in a drug case is the seized illegal drug itself. Its integrity and evidentiary value must be preserved to secure a conviction.
What happens if the chain of custody is compromised?	If the chain of custody is compromised, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are put into question, which can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Roy Magsano reinforces the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases. This case serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies that any deviation from the prescribed procedures, without justifiable grounds, can have serious consequences for the prosecution’s case. Ultimately, the ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual liberties and ensuring fairness in the administration of justice.

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, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROY MAGSANO Y SAGAUINIT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 231050, February 28, 2018