In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Joey Sanchez y Licudine, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. This ruling emphasizes the crucial importance of strictly adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, particularly Section 21, to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items in drug-related cases. The absence of required witnesses during critical stages, such as inventory and photography, coupled with a lack of justifiable explanations for these deviations, undermined the prosecution’s case, highlighting the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring due process even in the government’s anti-drug campaigns. This decision underscores the need for law enforcement to meticulously follow protocol to secure convictions and maintain public trust in the justice system.

Failing the Chain: How a Faulty Drug Bust Led to Acquittal

Joey Sanchez y Licudine was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation led to Sanchez’s arrest, during which he allegedly sold shabu to a poseur-buyer and was found in possession of additional sachets of the same substance. However, the Supreme Court found that the arresting officers had not followed the strict chain of custody requirements, leading to doubts about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. This case highlights the critical importance of proper procedure in drug-related arrests and the consequences of failing to adhere to these guidelines.

At the heart of the matter is the chain of custody rule, designed to ensure that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused. Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the specific steps that law enforcement officers must follow when handling seized drugs. Prior to its amendment by RA 10640, this section required that:

immediately after seizure and confiscation 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 DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be 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 purpose of these requirements is to prevent the switching, planting, or contamination of evidence, which could lead to the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The presence of these witnesses provides an added layer of transparency and accountability, ensuring that the evidence is handled properly from the moment it is seized until it is presented in court. Building on this principle, the Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the chain of custody rule.

However, the Court also acknowledges that strict compliance may not always be possible under varied field conditions. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which has since been crystallized into statutory law through RA 10640, recognize this reality. The IRR allows for the inventory and photography to be conducted at the nearest police station or office in cases of warrantless seizures. Moreover, it stipulates that:

non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II 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 by the apprehending officer or team.

In essence, this saving clause allows for deviations from the prescribed procedure, provided that the prosecution can demonstrate both a justifiable reason for the non-compliance and 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. This means that the prosecution must provide concrete evidence to explain why the required procedures were not followed, rather than simply asserting that they were impractical or unnecessary. The court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

In the Sanchez case, the Court found that the arresting officers had committed unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule. While representatives from the DOJ and the media were present during the inventory, they were not present during the marking, inventory, and photography at the scene of the arrest. Furthermore, no elected public official was present at any stage of the process. During the trial, IO1 Tabuyo admitted to these procedural lapses, confirming that the marking, inventory, and photography were conducted at the scene of the arrest, but the representatives were only asked to sign the Certificate of Inventory later at the office.

This approach contrasts sharply with the requirements of Section 21, which mandates the presence of these witnesses during the actual inventory and photography to ensure transparency and prevent any suspicion of tampering. The prosecution attempted to justify the absence of an elected public official by claiming that it was a “rush operation” and that they were unable to coordinate with any barangay official. However, the Court found this explanation to be insufficient, noting that the officers had ample time to prepare for the buy-bust operation and make the necessary arrangements for the presence of the required witnesses. As such, the apprehending officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of demonstrating “earnest efforts” to contact the required representatives, stating that a mere assertion of unavailability is not enough. A sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse. The absence of these witnesses, coupled with the lack of a justifiable explanation for their absence, raised serious doubts about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. These considerations arise from the fact that these officers are ordinarily given sufficient time – beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest – to prepare for a buy-bust operation.

The Court reiterated that the State bears the burden of proving not only the elements of the offense but also the integrity of the corpus delicti in prosecutions for the sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In the absence of such proof, the case against the accused must fail. This principle underscores the importance of upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable and trustworthy evidence. The Court also echoed its recurring pronouncement on the subject matter:

The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions.

This balance is critical to maintaining the integrity of the justice system and ensuring that the pursuit of order does not come at the expense of individual liberties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165. The Supreme Court found that the arresting officers had committed unjustified deviations from this rule, compromising the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the procedure for documenting and tracking the handling of evidence from the time it is seized until it is presented in court. It is designed to ensure that the evidence is authentic and has not been tampered with.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that, immediately after seizure, the apprehending team conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official. These individuals must sign the inventory, and the drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Failure to comply with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the drugs, provided that the prosecution can demonstrate a justifiable reason for the non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What is considered a justifiable reason for non-compliance?	A justifiable reason must be proven as a fact and must explain why the required procedures were not followed. Mere assertions of unavailability or impracticality are not sufficient.
What is the role of the media and DOJ representatives?	The presence of media and DOJ representatives is intended to provide transparency and accountability, ensuring that the evidence is handled properly and preventing any suspicion of tampering.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and acquitted Joey Sanchez y Licudine, finding that the prosecution had failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and had not provided justifiable reasons for the deviations from the prescribed procedure.
Why was the accused acquitted?	The accused was acquitted because the Court found that the procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drugs compromised their integrity and evidentiary value, creating reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Sanchez serves as a reminder of the importance of strict adherence to the procedural safeguards outlined in RA 9165. Law enforcement officers must ensure that they follow the chain of custody rule meticulously and that they have justifiable reasons for any deviations from the prescribed procedure. Otherwise, the integrity of the evidence may be compromised, leading to the acquittal of guilty individuals and undermining the government’s efforts to combat illegal drugs.

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. Joey Sanchez y Licudine, G.R. No. 231383, March 07, 2018