In drug-related cases, the integrity of the evidence is paramount. This means that the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized until they are presented in court. The Supreme Court held that failure to comply with the strict requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, particularly regarding the presence of mandatory witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs, casts doubt on the integrity of the evidence. This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the reliability of the evidence presented.

Buy-Bust Gone Wrong: When Procedure Undermines Prosecution

The case of People of the Philippines v. Rashid Binasing y Disalungan (G.R. No. 221439, July 4, 2018) involves an appeal by Rashid Binasing who was convicted of selling illegal drugs. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation led to Binasing’s arrest and the seizure of two sachets of shabu. Binasing contested his conviction, arguing that the police failed to follow the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Specifically, he pointed out that the required witnesses were not present during the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs. The central legal question was whether the failure to comply with these procedural safeguards compromised the integrity of the evidence, thus warranting an acquittal.

Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, lays out the specific steps that law enforcement officers must take when handling seized drugs. It states:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized. and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, x x x so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, x x x shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

The law mandates that after seizing illegal drugs, the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items. This must be done in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media. These witnesses are meant to ensure transparency and prevent evidence tampering. The Supreme Court has consistently held that these requirements are crucial to maintaining the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. In People v. Bintaib, the Court emphasized that the presence of insulating witnesses during marking, inventory, and photography is essential to deter potential planting of evidence.

In this case, the Court found that the police officers failed to comply with these requirements. The marking and physical inventory of the seized items, as well as the taking of photographs, were not done in the presence of the required insulating witnesses. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this non-compliance. Because of this lapse, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish that the substance seized from Binasing was the same substance presented in court. The absence of the required witnesses and the lack of a valid explanation for their absence created reasonable doubt about the integrity of the corpus delicti, the body of the crime.

Further complicating the prosecution’s case were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers. SPO3 Payla testified that the marking and inventory were done at their office, while SPO1 Sabaldana claimed they were done at Binasing’s house. Such contradictions on material facts further undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence. The Supreme Court has stated that while minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies are acceptable, irreconcilable inconsistencies on material facts can diminish or destroy the veracity of their accounts. When the details of a critical police procedure are disputed, it casts serious doubt on the validity of the entire operation.

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165. The Court has also clarified that while strict compliance is ideal, non-compliance can be excused if there is justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. However, the prosecution bears the burden of proving both of these conditions. In People v. Geronimo, the Court stated that the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and demonstrate that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had been preserved, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

In Binasing’s case, the prosecution failed to provide any justification for not following the required procedure. SPO3 Payla stated that they opted to prepare the inventory at the office because there were many people surrounding them, and they were unsure of their safety, stating that this was a Muslim area. However, the Court found this explanation insufficient, as it did not adequately explain why the witnesses could not have been present or why the inventory could not have been conducted at the scene with the required individuals present. The Court referenced People v. Jaafar, noting that failure to offer any justifiable explanation for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 creates reasonable doubt, warranting the acquittal of the accused.

Because of the non-compliance with procedural safeguards and the conflicting testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Binasing. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role that proper procedure plays in drug cases. The integrity of the evidence must be maintained at all times, and law enforcement officers must adhere to the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 to ensure a fair trial. The court noted, “Considering the non-compliance of the apprehending team with the procedural safeguards laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and considering further the conflicting testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses on material facts, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Accordingly, the Court is constrained to acquit appellant based on reasonable doubt.”

The ruling in People v. Binasing underscores the importance of the chain of custody in drug cases. The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers of evidence, each transfer documented, to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The prosecution must demonstrate that the seized drugs were handled properly from the moment of seizure to the time they were presented in court. Any break in the chain of custody can cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence and potentially lead to an acquittal. When the police fail to follow clear procedures and the prosecution cannot credibly demonstrate the integrity of the seized evidence, the scales of justice must tip in favor of the accused. This ruling reaffirms the commitment to protecting individual rights and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable evidence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the police’s failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, regarding the presence of mandatory witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs, compromised the integrity of the evidence and warranted an acquittal.
What is Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 outlines the procedures that law enforcement officers must follow when handling seized drugs, including conducting a physical inventory and photographing the items in the presence of the accused and certain witnesses.
Who are the required witnesses under Section 21?	The required witnesses are the accused (or their representative/counsel), an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Failure to comply with Section 21 can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence and potentially lead to an acquittal, unless the prosecution can justify the non-compliance and prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
Why are these witnesses required?	These witnesses are required to ensure transparency and prevent evidence tampering or planting by the police.
What is the corpus delicti?	The corpus delicti is the body of the crime, or the actual substance that proves a crime was committed. In drug cases, it refers to the seized illegal drugs.
What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Rashid Binasing, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the integrity of the evidence due to the police’s non-compliance with Section 21 and inconsistencies in their testimonies.
What is the chain of custody?	The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of transfers of evidence, ensuring its integrity from seizure to presentation in court.
What is the effect of inconsistent testimonies from the prosecution?	While minor inconsistencies are acceptable, irreconcilable inconsistencies on material facts can diminish or destroy the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Binasing emphasizes the importance of adhering to the strict requirements of RA 9165 to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases. This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow the prescribed procedures to avoid compromising the prosecution’s case.

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. Rashid Binasing y Disalungan, G.R. No. 221439, July 4, 2018