In drug-related cases, the integrity of the evidence is paramount. The Supreme Court in People v. Joey Reyes y Lagman overturned the conviction of the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to adequately establish and justify breaks in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. This ruling underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in handling evidence, particularly the presence and documentation of required witnesses during inventory and photography, to protect individual rights and ensure the fairness of legal proceedings.

Broken Links: When Missing Witnesses Lead to Acquittal in Drug Cases

The case of People v. Joey Reyes y Lagman (G.R. No. 238594, November 5, 2018) revolves around the arrest and conviction of Reyes for the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, also known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” Reyes was apprehended during a buy-bust operation, and subsequent search revealed additional sachets of shabu in his possession. The prosecution presented testimonies from the buy-bust team, asserting that the chain of custody was substantially complied with, preserving the integrity of the seized drugs. However, the defense contested the charges, claiming Reyes was merely a bystander wrongly implicated in the operation. The central legal question is whether the prosecution adequately proved the chain of custody of the seized drugs, especially concerning the presence and documentation of required witnesses during inventory and photography.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized that in cases involving violations of RA 9165, establishing the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty is essential, as it forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized until their presentation in court.

A critical aspect of the chain of custody procedure is the requirement for marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation. The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as 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. After the amendment, the required witnesses are an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.

The purpose of requiring the presence of these witnesses is to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and to remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. As a general rule, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as it is regarded not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law. This is because the law has been crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment.

However, the Court recognizes that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The foregoing is based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640.

Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 pertinently states: “Provided, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items”

It is essential to note that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear.

The Court, in People v. Miranda, issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases, imploring that, “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.”

In the case at bar, the Inventory of Confiscated/Seized Drugs dated December 20, 2012, explicitly stated that no elected public official and DOJ representative were available to witness the concurrent conduct of inventory and photography of the items purportedly seized from Reyes. The testimonies of the police officers revealed that the absence of the aforesaid required witnesses was not acknowledged by the prosecution. The prosecution only endeavored to prove that there was indeed a conduct of inventory and photography and then moved on to another matter. Notably, the absence of an elected public official and a DOJ representative during such conduct was never acknowledged, much less justified.

In view of this unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, the Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Reyes were compromised, which consequently warranted his acquittal. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for these witnesses’ absence by presenting a justifiable reason or, at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their presence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved the chain of custody of the seized drugs, particularly regarding the presence and justification for the absence of required witnesses during inventory and photography.
Why was the accused acquitted?	The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to justify the absence of an elected public official and a DOJ representative during the inventory and photography of the seized drugs, thus compromising the integrity of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule requires the prosecution to account for each link in the chain, from seizure to presentation in court, to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. This includes proper documentation, handling, and storage of the evidence.
Who are the required witnesses during inventory and photography of seized drugs?	Prior to RA 10640 amendment, the required witnesses were a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. After the amendment, the required witnesses are an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.
What happens if the required witnesses are not present?	If the required witnesses are not present, the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for their absence and demonstrate that genuine and sufficient efforts were made to secure their presence. Failure to do so may result in the evidence being deemed inadmissible.
What is the significance of the ‘saving clause’ in RA 9165?	The ‘saving clause’ allows for non-compliance with certain procedural requirements if the prosecution can prove justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What is the role of prosecutors in ensuring compliance with the chain of custody rule?	Prosecutors have a positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody, regardless of whether the defense raises the issue. Failure to do so can result in the overturning of a conviction, even on appeal.
How does this case impact future drug-related prosecutions?	This case reinforces the importance of strict compliance with the chain of custody rule and highlights the potential consequences of failing to justify the absence of required witnesses. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement and prosecutors to adhere to procedural safeguards to ensure fair trials.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Joey Reyes y Lagman serves as a significant reminder of the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. The unjustified absence of required witnesses during critical stages of evidence handling can compromise the integrity of the evidence and lead to the acquittal of the accused. Law enforcement and prosecutors must ensure that all procedural safeguards are meticulously followed to uphold justice and protect individual rights.

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 v. Reyes, G.R. No. 238594, November 05, 2018