In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Jaycent Mola y Selbosa a.k.a. “Otok” due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. This decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to the procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and its amendments, to protect individual rights and ensure the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases. This acquittal highlights that any reasonable doubt in the evidence presented, especially concerning the handling of the seized substance, must lead to a verdict in favor of the accused.

From Buy-Bust to Broken Chain: How Drug Evidence Falters

The case revolves around the arrest of Jaycent Mola, who was accused of selling shabu during a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented evidence including testimony from the arresting officer and the forensic chemist. However, the defense argued that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The central legal question is whether the lapses in the chain of custody compromised the evidence, thus warranting an acquittal.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) detail the specific steps that law enforcement officers must take when handling seized drugs. These steps include: immediate marking and inventory of the seized items at the place of arrest, in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The purpose of these requirements is to prevent the planting of evidence and ensure that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused.

(1) 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.

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for not complying with the requirements of Section 21. Specifically, the marking of the seized shabu was not done immediately at the place of arrest. The Court found the explanation offered by the arresting officer, SPO4 Columbino, that he was alone and there were many people present, as an insufficient justification. The Court emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance. Absent such proof, the integrity of the evidence is called into question.

Building on this principle, the Court also noted the absence of the required witnesses during the inventory-taking. While a certain Jerry Cayabyab claimed to have witnessed the seizure, he was not present during the actual marking and inventory of the confiscated items at the police precinct. This further weakened the prosecution’s case, as it raised doubts about whether the marked sachet of shabu was the same item seized from Mola at the time of his arrest. The presence of required witnesses is important, not only for the inventory but also so that there is no doubt as to what was seized in the first place, to be the same one being inventoried.

Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish a clear link in the chain of custody regarding the handling of the drug specimen by the forensic chemist. While PS/Insp. Malojo-Todeño testified about the results of her examination, the prosecution did not provide evidence of the source of the substance she examined. The Court noted the absence of testimony or stipulations regarding the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs from the forensic chemist to the court. This gap in the chain of custody created further doubt as to whether the corpus delicti of the crime had been properly preserved. This concept is very critical, given that it is the body of the crime that has to be presented to the court in order to prove such crime.

The Court referenced its previous rulings on the importance of adhering to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. In People v. Miranda, the Court clarified that while strict compliance with Section 21 may not always be possible, any non-compliance must be justified. Moreover, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items must be properly preserved. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and demonstrate that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved. In the absence of such justification and proof, the seizure and custody over the items are deemed void and invalid.

This ruling aligns with the legislative intent behind R.A. No. 10640, which amended R.A. No. 9165. Senator Grace Poe, during her Sponsorship Speech on Senate Bill No. 2273, acknowledged that strict compliance with Section 21 has been difficult and has led to conflicting court decisions. She noted the challenges in securing the presence of media representatives and the involvement of elected barangay officials in the punishable acts. Similarly, Senator Vicente C. Sotto III emphasized the need to address the varying interpretations of Section 21 and ensure its standard implementation.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of raising objections against the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs for the first time on appeal. It clarified that this does not preclude the appellate courts from passing upon the same. If doubt surfaces on the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, the courts must rule in favor of the accused, even at the appeal stage, to protect individual liberties within the bounds of law. This underscores the court’s commitment to upholding due process and ensuring that no one is convicted based on questionable evidence.

This approach contrasts with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The Court stated that this presumption cannot work in favor of the law enforcers when the records reveal inexcusable lapses in observing the requisites of the law. The presumption may only arise when there is a showing that the apprehending officer/team followed the requirements of Section 21 or when the saving clause is successfully triggered. In this case, the evidence of non-compliance with the law contradicted and overcame the presumption of regularity. Therefore, the court had to act accordingly.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. This involves proving that the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused.
What is the “chain of custody” in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers and handling of evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. Each person who handled the evidence must be identified to ensure the integrity and authenticity of the evidence.
What does Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 require?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. These steps must be documented and followed meticulously.
What happens if there are lapses in the chain of custody?	Lapses in the chain of custody can create doubt about the integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. It is crucial for law enforcement to strictly adhere to the procedures outlined in Section 21.
What is the significance of the witnesses required under Section 21?	The presence of witnesses helps ensure transparency and prevents the planting or tampering of evidence. The witnesses provide an independent verification of the seizure and inventory process.
Can non-compliance with Section 21 be excused?	Yes, non-compliance can be excused if the prosecution provides justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and demonstrates that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. However, this must be proven as a fact.
What is the role of the forensic chemist in the chain of custody?	The forensic chemist examines the seized substance to determine if it is indeed an illegal drug. Their testimony is essential to establish that the substance tested was the same one seized from the accused.
Why was Jaycent Mola acquitted in this case?	Jaycent Mola was acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. There were lapses in the marking, inventory, and handling of the seized drugs, raising reasonable doubt about the integrity of the evidence.
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. It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance is indeed an illegal drug and that it was seized from the accused.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of following proper procedures in drug-related cases to ensure that justice is served and individual rights are protected. Strict adherence to the chain of custody requirements is essential for maintaining the integrity of evidence and preventing wrongful convictions.

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, V. JAYCENT MOLA, G.R. No. 226481, April 18, 2018