In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Romy Lim, who was charged with illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs, due to a failure in maintaining the integrity of the evidence. The Court emphasized strict adherence to the chain of custody requirements outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This decision underscores the importance of following proper procedures in handling drug evidence to protect the rights of the accused and ensure fair trials. The acquittal highlights how critical it is for law enforcement to meticulously comply with mandated protocols, as deviations can lead to reasonable doubt and the dismissal of drug-related charges.

Busted Buy-Bust: When Procedural Lapses Cloud Drug Evidence

The case began with a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) based on information from a confidential informant. Romy Lim and his stepson, Eldie Gorres, were arrested and charged with drug-related offenses. During the trial, the prosecution presented testimonies and evidence, asserting that Lim possessed and sold methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. However, the defense argued that the buy-bust team failed to follow the mandated procedures outlined in Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which concerns the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs.

The central legal question revolved around whether the prosecution adequately demonstrated an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. The chain of custody, as defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, refers to:

the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

This requirement aims to ensure the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, preventing tampering, alteration, or substitution. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the chain of custody rule is a crucial aspect of authenticating real evidence before its admission in court. In Mallillin v. People, the Supreme Court elucidated:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

The key links in the chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused; (2) the turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the illegal drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, mandates that the apprehending team, 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 such items were confiscated, 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.

The Supreme Court found that the buy-bust team failed to comply with these requirements. Specifically, there was no elected public official or representatives from the DOJ and the media present during the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable reasons for this non-compliance, such as:

• Their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area.
• Their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened.
• The elected officials themselves were involved in the punishable acts.
• Earnest efforts to secure their presence proved futile.
• Time constraints and urgency prevented securing their presence.

Instead, the PDEA operatives claimed that it was late at night and raining, making it unsafe for them to wait for the representatives at Lim’s house. They also admitted that there are times when they do not inform barangay officials prior to their operation as they might leak the confidential information. The Court deemed these justifications unacceptable, emphasizing that there was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law. Crucially, Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was amended to include a proviso that leaves room for noncompliance under “justifiable grounds,” but this requires the prosecution to both identify and prove the grounds, and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

In examining the testimonies, the Supreme Court noted conflicting statements regarding where the inventory and marking of the seized items took place. These inconsistencies and the failure to secure the presence of mandatory witnesses further weakened the prosecution’s case. Moreover, the buy-bust team failed to account for the handling and safeguarding of the shabu from the moment it was purportedly taken from the accused, thereby raising serious doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

The Court took the opportunity to establish mandatory policies in the enforcement of R.A. 9165 cases to be filed in court. It is now a requirement, first, for the apprehending/seizing officers to state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR in their sworn statements/affidavits; second, in case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items; third, If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause and lastly, If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and offer credible justifications for the procedural lapses. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were compromised, leading to reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. The Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the mandated procedures in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused and prevent wrongful convictions.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately demonstrated an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The Court found significant lapses in the procedures followed by the buy-bust team, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution account for every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it is presented in court, ensuring its integrity and identity. This prevents tampering, alteration, or substitution of the evidence.
What are the mandatory requirements after seizing drugs?	After seizing drugs, the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the DOJ or the media. These individuals must sign the inventory copies.
What happens if these requirements are not met?	If the mandatory requirements are not met, the prosecution must provide justifiable reasons for the non-compliance and demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. Failure to do so can lead to the inadmissibility of the evidence and the acquittal of the accused.
What reasons did the police give for non-compliance in this case?	The police claimed it was late at night and raining, making it unsafe to wait for representatives. They also expressed distrust of barangay officials, but the Court rejected these justifications as insufficient.
What is the “saving clause” in Section 21 of R.A. 9165?	The “saving clause” allows noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, the prosecution must acknowledge the lapses and provide credible justification.
What is the presumption of regularity, and how does it apply to drug cases?	The presumption of regularity assumes that public officials perform their duties properly. However, it does not apply if there are indications that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct required by law, as in this case.
How does this ruling impact future drug cases in the Philippines?	This ruling reinforces the importance of strict compliance with the chain of custody requirements in drug cases. It emphasizes that procedural lapses can lead to the inadmissibility of evidence and the acquittal of the accused, underscoring the need for meticulous adherence to protocol by law enforcement.

This Supreme Court decision serves as a potent reminder of the critical importance of due process and adherence to mandated procedures in drug-related cases. It underscores that even with good intentions, law enforcement must meticulously follow the letter of the law to ensure the integrity of evidence and protect the rights of the accused.

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. ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, G.R. No. 231989, September 04, 2018