In People of the Philippines vs. Wilt Sam Bangalan y Mamba, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the chain of custody rule, specifically the absence of required witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs. This ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, ensuring the integrity of evidence and protecting the rights of the accused. The decision reinforces that failure to justify deviations from the chain of custody can lead to the dismissal of charges, highlighting the prosecution’s duty to diligently follow legal protocols.

Missing Witnesses: How a Buy-Bust Operation’s Lapses Led to Freedom

This case originated from an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) accusing Wilt Sam Bangalan of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution claimed that on July 27, 2012, Bangalan was caught in a buy-bust operation with 8.12 grams of dried marijuana leaves. However, Bangalan denied these charges, stating he was forcefully taken to the police station and detained after failing to provide information on another individual. The RTC found Bangalan guilty, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00, a decision later appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the conviction but increased the fine to P500,000.00. The Supreme Court, however, took a different view.

The Supreme Court emphasized the critical importance of establishing the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty. According to the Court, this is because the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. The Court cited numerous cases to support this principle, stating that failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient, warranting an acquittal. To ensure this integrity, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court.

A crucial part of this chain involves the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items immediately after confiscation. The law mandates that this process occur in the presence of the accused and certain required witnesses. Prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, these witnesses included “a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.” Post-amendment, the requirement shifted to “[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media.” These witnesses are essential to prevent any suspicion of evidence tampering, switching, or contamination.

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance might not always be possible due to varying field conditions. However, it also stressed that non-compliance is only excusable if the prosecution proves: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. This principle is rooted in the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, later incorporated into RA 10640. It’s important to note that the prosecution must actively explain these lapses; the Court cannot presume the existence of justifiable grounds.

In this case, the inventory of the seized item lacked representation from both the DOJ and the media. The testimony of Police Officer 2 Albert Caranguian (PO2 Caranguian) highlighted this deficiency when he stated he could not remember if he invited a DOJ representative or media men during the inventory. This failure to account for the absence of required witnesses, without providing a justifiable reason or demonstrating genuine efforts to secure their presence, proved fatal to the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court, in People v. Miranda, had previously reminded prosecutors of their duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody, regardless of whether the defense raises it. Failure to do so risks having a conviction overturned, even if the issue is raised for the first time on appeal. Because the prosecution failed to justify the absence of the required witnesses and provide evidence that photographs of the confiscated items were duly taken, the Supreme Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized from Bangalan were compromised.

“[S]ince] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence’s integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further review.”

The High Court also took note that records are bereft of any indication that photographs of the confiscated items were duly taken. This lapse was completely unacknowledged and, therefore, left unjustified by the prosecution altogether. Because of these deviations, the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Bangalan were compromised, which consequently warrants his acquittal.

Because of the violations of protocol the Court ruled that:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 3, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07883 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Wilt Sam Bangalan y Mamba is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule under RA 9165, particularly regarding the presence of required witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs.
Why were the witnesses important in this case?	The presence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (or, post-amendment, a National Prosecution Service representative or media) is mandated to ensure the integrity of the seized drugs and prevent tampering or planting of evidence.
What is the ‘chain of custody’ in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented process of tracking seized drugs from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court, ensuring their identity and integrity are maintained.
What did the Court consider a major lapse in procedure?	The Court considered the prosecution’s failure to justify the absence of required witnesses during the inventory and the lack of evidence that photographs of the confiscated items were duly taken as major lapses.
What is the saving clause mentioned in the decision?	The saving clause allows for non-strict compliance with chain of custody rules if the prosecution can prove justifiable grounds for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and acquitted Wilt Sam Bangalan, finding that the prosecution failed to properly establish the integrity of the seized drugs due to procedural lapses.
Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused?	The Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the prosecution failed to justify the absence of required witnesses during the inventory of the seized drugs, compromising the integrity of the evidence.
What is the effect of non-compliance with the chain of custody rule?	Non-compliance with the chain of custody rule can render the seized drugs inadmissible as evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused if the prosecution’s case relies solely on that evidence.

This case serves as a reminder of the necessity for law enforcement to meticulously follow the procedures outlined in RA 9165 to ensure the admissibility of evidence and the validity of convictions in drug-related cases. The stringent requirements for witness presence and documentation are not mere formalities but critical safeguards to protect individual rights and maintain the integrity of the justice system.

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. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, September 03, 2018