In the Philippines, the Supreme Court has reiterated the critical importance of adhering to strict procedures when handling drug-related evidence. The Court acquitted Angel Angeles y Arimbuyutan, who was previously convicted of drug-related offenses, emphasizing that failure to comply with the mandated chain of custody requirements compromises the integrity of the evidence. This ruling reinforces the protection against potential abuse in anti-narcotics operations, ensuring that individual rights are not sacrificed in the pursuit of justice.

Flawed Evidence: Can a Buy-Bust Stand Without Required Witnesses?

The case of People of the Philippines v. Angel Angeles y Arimbuyutan began with a buy-bust operation conducted by the Caloocan City Police. Based on information about an individual selling drugs, the police set up a sting operation where PO1 Aldrin Engracia acted as the poseur-buyer. Angeles was arrested after allegedly selling two sachets of shabu to the officer. Subsequently, he was also charged for illegal drug use after testing positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. However, the crucial issue arose from the handling of the seized drugs and the subsequent legal proceedings.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Angeles on both charges, but the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision. The CA reasoned that the prosecution successfully established the elements of the crimes and that any non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” was a mere technicality. This provision outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs to maintain their integrity as evidence. Angeles then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of his conviction.

The Supreme Court scrutinized the procedures followed by the police. At the heart of the matter was Section 21 of RA 9165, which mandates specific steps for handling seized drugs. This section requires that immediately after seizure, the drugs must be inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). All these individuals must sign the inventory, ensuring transparency and accountability. This provision is crucial because, as the Court noted, “the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures…the possibility of abuse is great.”

The law is very clear that the inventory and photography must be done immediately after seizure, implying that the required witnesses should be present at the time of apprehension. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 allow for the inventory to be done at the nearest police station only when it is not practicable to do so at the place of seizure. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that buy-bust operations are planned activities, providing ample time for the police to secure the presence of the required witnesses. In this case, none of the required witnesses were present during the arrest or inventory.

The prosecution argued that despite the non-compliance with Section 21, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The RTC and CA accepted this argument, relying on the presumption that police officers performed their duties regularly. The Supreme Court strongly rejected this notion. The Court clarified that while it has previously ruled that strict compliance with Section 21 is not always mandatory, the prosecution must still prove two things: first, that there was a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and second, that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide any justification for the absence of the required witnesses.

The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug…without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, “planting” or contamination of the evidence…again reared their ugly heads.

The Supreme Court also highlighted the failure of the police to follow their own internal procedures for conducting buy-bust operations. Under the Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Manual, officers must take actual inventory of seized evidence, prepare a detailed receipt, and take photographs during the inventory process. The Court noted that given these established procedures, it was difficult to understand why the buy-bust team could not ensure the presence of the required witnesses or, at the very least, properly document the seized items. This further eroded the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.

Building on this, the Court addressed the CA’s assertion that the defense waived its right to question the police’s compliance with Section 21 by failing to do so during cross-examination. The Supreme Court firmly stated that the burden of proof always rests on the prosecution. The accused has a constitutional right to be presumed innocent, and this presumption is only overturned when the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is the prosecution’s responsibility to demonstrate compliance with Section 21, regardless of whether the defense raises the issue.

Moreover, the Court addressed the conviction for illegal drug use under Section 15 of RA 9165. Angeles tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride after his arrest. However, because the initial arrest was deemed illegal due to the violation of Section 21, the subsequent drug test was also considered inadmissible as evidence. The Court applied the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, which states that evidence derived from an illegal act is also inadmissible. Since the drug test was a direct result of the unlawful arrest, it could not be used to support the conviction for illegal drug use. The Court therefore acquitted Angeles on both charges.

The case underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. The failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, especially the requirement to have the presence of mandatory witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs, can lead to the exclusion of evidence and the acquittal of the accused. This decision reinforces the principle that the rights of the accused must be protected and that the prosecution must adhere to the law. This decision stresses that the war on drugs should be fought within the parameters of the law, and law enforcement must not skirt legal procedures and requirements even with the end goal of nabbing alleged offenders.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the failure of the police to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, regarding the chain of custody of seized drugs, invalidated the arrest and conviction of the accused.
What is Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedure that law enforcement officers must follow when handling seized drugs, including inventory and photography in the presence of specific witnesses.
Who are the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165?	The required witnesses are the accused or their representative, an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Why is the presence of these witnesses important?	Their presence is intended to prevent the planting, contamination, or loss of seized drugs, ensuring the integrity and credibility of the evidence.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	If the prosecution cannot provide a justifiable reason for non-compliance and prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved, the evidence may be deemed inadmissible, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused.
What is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine?	The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine states that evidence derived from an illegal act is also inadmissible in court.
How did the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine apply in this case?	Because the initial arrest was deemed illegal due to the violation of Section 21, the subsequent drug test was also considered inadmissible as evidence.
Can the presumption of regularity override the presumption of innocence?	No, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The burden of proof always rests on the prosecution.

This case serves as a significant reminder of the importance of upholding due process and protecting individual rights within the legal system. It emphasizes that law enforcement must adhere to established procedures to ensure the integrity of evidence and prevent potential abuses. By prioritizing these safeguards, the courts can maintain the public’s trust and ensure that justice is served fairly.

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, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ANGEL ANGELES Y ARIMBUYUTAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 237355, November 21, 2018