The Supreme Court acquitted Nila Malana of illegal drug sale due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere to mandatory procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, particularly Section 21 concerning the chain of custody of seized drugs. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to justify the absence of required witnesses during the seizure and inventory of the alleged illegal drugs, thereby compromising the integrity of the evidence. This ruling underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases, ensuring fair trials and preventing wrongful convictions.

When Law Enforcement Fails: A Drug Case Dismissed on Procedural Grounds

This case revolves around the arrest and conviction of Nila Malana for allegedly selling methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “shabu,” during a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine National Police in Camalaniugan, Cagayan. The prosecution presented testimonies from the arresting officers, asserting that Malana sold a sachet of shabu to a police poseur-buyer. However, the defense argued that Malana was framed and that the police did not follow proper procedures in handling the seized evidence. The central legal question is whether the procedural lapses in the handling of evidence, specifically concerning the chain of custody requirements under Republic Act No. 9165, warrant the acquittal of the accused, despite the testimonies of law enforcement officers.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, which mandates specific steps for maintaining the integrity of seized drugs. This section requires that the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused or their representative, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. All these individuals must sign the inventory and receive a copy.

In this case, the Court found that none of the three required witnesses were present at the time of seizure, and only one, an elected public official, was present during the inventory. SPO1 Kenneth Urian testified that the Barangay Council members arrived after the arrest. The prosecution failed to provide any explanation for the absence of the DOJ and media representatives, relying instead on the presumption that police officers performed their duties regularly. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this presumption, stating that it cannot override the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

The Court emphasized the importance of the presence of the required witnesses to prevent the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. As highlighted in People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018:

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 that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.

The Court noted that the apprehending team had ample time to comply with the requirements of the law, as they had planned the buy-bust operation a day in advance. Despite this, they failed to secure the attendance of all the required witnesses and did not offer any justification for their deviation from the law. This failure to comply with the mandatory procedures under Section 21 of RA 9165, without any justifiable explanation, raised serious doubts about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the lower courts’ reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers. The Supreme Court clarified that this presumption cannot prevail over the accused’s right to be presumed innocent. In People v. Catalan, 699 Phil. 603 (2012), the Court reminded lower courts that:

The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence favoring the accused. Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee of the accused being presumed innocent would be held subordinate to a mere rule of evidence allocating the burden of evidence.

The Court also pointed out that the police officers failed to follow the internal anti-drug operation procedures outlined in the 1999 Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Manual, which requires detailed inventory and marking of seized evidence. This failure further undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

While acknowledging that denial is a weak defense, the Court emphasized that the prosecution still bears the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does not need to present evidence if the prosecution fails to discharge its burden. The prosecution’s failure to prove compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, and to provide a sufficient explanation for non-compliance, was fatal to its case.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that even if there are justifiable grounds for non-compliance, the prosecution must prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. This requirement was not met in Malana’s case. The Court stressed the need for police officers to act within the bounds of the law when conducting anti-drug operations. The integrity and credibility of the evidence were compromised due to the absence of the required witnesses during the seizure and marking of the drugs.

The Court, referring to People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671 (2016), reiterated that the prosecution must recognize any procedural lapses and justify them to warrant the application of the saving mechanism provided in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165. In this case, the prosecution failed to acknowledge or justify any deviations from the procedure, further weakening its case.

The Supreme Court referenced People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024 (2012), where the Court emphasized that the prosecution has a positive duty to establish that earnest efforts were made to contact the required representatives under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165 or that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so. This duty was not fulfilled in the case against Malana.

Thus, the Supreme Court acquitted Nila Malana, emphasizing that the prosecution’s failure to comply with the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. The Court reiterated that strict adherence to procedural safeguards is essential to protect the rights of the accused and ensure fair trials in drug-related cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the procedural lapses in the handling of evidence, particularly concerning the chain of custody requirements under Republic Act No. 9165, warranted the acquittal of the accused.
What is Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs. It mandates specific steps to maintain the integrity of seized drugs, including inventory and photographing in the presence of required witnesses.
Who are the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165?	The required witnesses are the accused or their representative, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.
What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the presumption of regularity?	The Supreme Court ruled that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by police officers cannot override the accused’s right to be presumed innocent.
Why was the presence of the required witnesses so important in this case?	The presence of the required witnesses is crucial to prevent the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug, ensuring the integrity and credibility of the evidence.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165?	If the police fail to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 without justifiable grounds, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs may be compromised, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused.
What is the prosecution’s duty in case of non-compliance with Section 21?	The prosecution has the duty to recognize any procedural lapses and justify them, demonstrating that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What was the outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Nila Malana due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165, compromising the integrity of the evidence.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. The ruling reinforces the need for law enforcement officers to meticulously follow the chain of custody requirements under Republic Act No. 9165 to protect the rights of the accused and uphold the integrity of the justice system. This decision further emphasizes that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot overshadow the fundamental right of an accused to be presumed innocent, thereby ensuring a fair and just legal process.

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. NILA MALANA, G.R. No. 233747, December 05, 2018