In the Philippine legal system, the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases is paramount. The Supreme Court, in People v. Rodelina Malazo y Doria, emphasized the importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule to safeguard against planting of evidence and ensure the accused’s rights are protected. This case serves as a crucial reminder to law enforcement of the stringent requirements for handling and documenting seized drugs, highlighting that failure to comply with these procedures can lead to acquittal.

When Missing Witnesses Undermine Drug Convictions: A Chain of Custody Breakdown

Rodelina Malazo y Doria was charged with illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in Dagupan City. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation led to Malazo’s arrest, with police officers claiming to have found her in possession of the illegal drugs. Malazo, however, denied these allegations, claiming that the police officers were retaliating against her. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Malazo guilty, a decision that was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court (SC) reversed these decisions, acquitting Malazo due to the prosecution’s failure to properly establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This provision outlines the procedures that law enforcement officers must follow when handling seized drugs, including the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs immediately after seizure. Crucially, this must be done in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The presence of these witnesses is intended to ensure transparency and prevent the planting of evidence.

In Malazo’s case, the prosecution admitted that while an elected public official was present during the inventory, representatives from the media and the DOJ were absent. Furthermore, the elected public official did not sign the inventory or receive a copy, as required by law. The Court emphasized that the absence of these witnesses and the lack of proper documentation raised serious doubts about the integrity of the seized drugs. The **chain of custody** refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled precursors and essential chemicals 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.

The **chain of custody rule** is vital in drug cases because it ensures that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence that was seized from the accused. Any break in this chain can cast doubt on the authenticity and integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to wrongful convictions. The Supreme Court has consistently held that strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is essential to protect the rights of the accused and maintain public trust in the justice system.

The court quoted Section 21(1) of RA 9165 which states that:

Section 21. x x x.

(1)The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; (Emphasis supplied)

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 further elaborate on this requirement. Section 21(a) of the IRR states that non-compliance with these requirements may be excused under justifiable grounds, but only if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In Malazo’s case, the prosecution failed to provide any justification for the absence of the required witnesses or to demonstrate that the integrity of the drugs was preserved despite this non-compliance.

The Supreme Court has provided guidelines for law enforcement officers to follow in complying with Section 21 of RA 9165. These guidelines, outlined in People v. Lim, include the requirement that apprehending officers state their compliance with Section 21(1) of RA 9165 in their sworn statements or affidavits. If there is non-observance of the provision, the officers must state the justification or explanation therefor, as well as the steps they have taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

In cases where there is no justification or explanation for non-compliance, the investigating fiscal should not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, the fiscal must refer the case for further preliminary investigation to determine the existence of probable cause. This ensures that only cases with a strong evidentiary basis are brought to trial, protecting the rights of the accused and preventing the waste of judicial resources.

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule, particularly in cases involving small quantities of drugs. This is because small quantities of drugs are more susceptible to planting, tampering, and alteration. In People v. Sipin, the Court outlined several reasons that may justify the absence of the required witnesses, such as the remoteness of the place of arrest, threats to the safety of the witnesses, or the involvement of elected officials in the crime. However, the prosecution must allege and prove that the absence of the witnesses was due to one of these justifiable reasons.

Building on this principle, the ruling in People v. Malazo serves as a powerful reminder of the critical role of procedural safeguards in ensuring fair trials and protecting individual liberties. By holding law enforcement accountable for strict compliance with chain of custody requirements, the Court reinforces the principle that the ends do not justify the means, and that even in the pursuit of justice, due process must be scrupulously observed. Therefore, the failure to adhere to these established procedures can have significant legal repercussions.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution had adequately established the chain of custody of the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires law enforcement officers to properly document and maintain control of seized evidence, ensuring its authenticity and integrity throughout the legal process. It is a procedural safeguard against tampering, contamination, or substitution of evidence.
Who must be present during the inventory of seized drugs?	According to Section 21 of RA 9165, the inventory and photographing of seized drugs must be done in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and an elected public official.
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 the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What are some justifiable reasons for the absence of witnesses?	Some justifiable reasons include the remoteness of the place of arrest, threats to the safety of the witnesses, or the involvement of elected officials in the crime.
What is the role of the investigating fiscal in these cases?	The investigating fiscal must ensure that the chain of custody requirements have been met and that there is probable cause to file the case in court. If there are doubts about the integrity of the evidence, the fiscal should refer the case for further investigation.
What is the significance of this case for law enforcement officers?	This case serves as a reminder to law enforcement officers of the importance of strictly adhering to the chain of custody rule and properly documenting their actions. Failure to comply with these procedures can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
How does this case impact the rights of the accused?	This case reinforces the rights of the accused to a fair trial and to be protected from wrongful convictions based on unreliable evidence. By upholding the chain of custody rule, the Court ensures that the accused is not convicted based on planted or tampered evidence.

In conclusion, the People v. Rodelina Malazo y Doria case underscores the importance of meticulously following the procedures outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 to maintain the integrity of drug-related evidence. This ruling not only safeguards the rights of the accused but also reinforces the need for transparency and accountability in law enforcement. Stricter adherence to Section 21 promotes public trust in the criminal justice system and prevents potential miscarriages of justice.

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, APPELLEE, VS. RODELINA MALAZO Y DORIA, APPELLANT., G.R. No. 223713, January 07, 2019