The Supreme Court acquitted Benjie Caranto, reversing his conviction for the sale of illegal drugs due to significant lapses in the conduct of the buy-bust operation. The Court emphasized the mandatory presence of key witnesses during the arrest and seizure to ensure the integrity of the evidence and protect against potential abuses. This decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to uphold the accused’s constitutional rights.

Entrapment or Frame-Up? Unraveling the Flaws in a Buy-Bust Operation

The case of People of the Philippines v. Benjie Caranto y Austria revolves around the conviction of Benjie for selling illegal drugs, specifically methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The prosecution presented evidence of a buy-bust operation where Benjie allegedly sold a plastic sachet containing 0.07 grams of shabu to an undercover police officer. However, critical procedural lapses during the operation raised serious doubts about the legitimacy of the evidence and the fairness of the trial. The Supreme Court ultimately had to consider whether the evidence presented was enough to prove Benjie’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially given the apparent deviations from established protocols in handling drug-related evidence.

At the heart of this case lies Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This provision outlines the specific procedures that law enforcement officers must follow when handling confiscated drugs to maintain the integrity of the evidence. The law mandates that:

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(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[.]

The Supreme Court has consistently held that strict compliance with Section 21 is crucial to ensure the admissibility of drug evidence in court. It requires that the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These witnesses serve as safeguards against potential planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drugs.

In this particular case, the buy-bust team failed to meet several of these requirements. Critically, none of the three required witnesses were present at the time of Benjie’s arrest and the initial marking of the seized items. The witnesses were only called to the police station later to witness the inventory, which the Court found to be a significant departure from the law’s intent. SPO2 Raymund Tacio’s testimony confirmed this sequence of events:

Q After you read [to] him his Constitutional Rights, what else happened at the place where the suspect was arrested?

A The evidence was marked by SPO2 Boado.

Q After that, what happened next?

A We conducted an initial inventory and then we proceeded to Station 5 for the actual inventory.

Q At Station 5, who arrived there during the actual inventory?

A It was Prosecutor Bernabe and then the elected Barangay Official that is Patacsil, then a media representative from ABS CBN, Ron Molina.

The Court emphasized that the presence of these witnesses is not merely a formality but a crucial element to protect the accused’s rights. As the Court articulated in People v. Tomawis, the presence of these witnesses is vital to prevent the possibility of evidence tampering or planting. Without their presence at the time of seizure, the integrity and credibility of the evidence becomes questionable.

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. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, 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 No. 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.

Furthermore, the buy-bust team failed to provide any justifiable reason for their non-compliance with Section 21. The Court noted that the police officers had ample opportunity to secure the presence of the required witnesses, especially since they had conducted surveillance in the area the day before the operation. Despite this, they did not take the necessary steps to ensure compliance, raising further doubts about the legitimacy of the operation.

While the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 provide a “saving clause” that allows for deviations from strict compliance under certain circumstances, the prosecution failed to invoke this clause or provide any justification for the procedural lapses. The Court emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proving both compliance with Section 21 and providing a sufficient explanation for any non-compliance. In the absence of such justification, the integrity of the evidence is compromised, and the accused is entitled to acquittal.

In light of these irregularities, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove Benjie’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also addressed the issue of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, often invoked by law enforcement officers. The Court clarified that this presumption cannot override the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent. The blatant disregard of established procedures in this case served as affirmative proof of irregularity, undermining the presumption of regularity.

The Court’s decision also casts doubt on the very conduct of the buy-bust operation itself. Several factors contributed to this skepticism, including the absence of witnesses during the operation, the failure to photograph the seized items in the presence of the required witnesses, and the lack of details regarding the alleged surveillance conducted by the police. These circumstances, combined with Benjie’s corroborated testimony that he was merely picked up and coerced into admitting ownership of the drugs, led the Court to conclude that the buy-bust operation was a mere pretense.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the prosecution proved Benjie Caranto’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for selling illegal drugs, considering significant procedural lapses during the buy-bust operation, particularly the absence of mandatory witnesses.
What is Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedures that law enforcement officers must follow when handling confiscated drugs to ensure the integrity and admissibility of the evidence in court. It requires the inventory and photographing of seized items immediately after seizure in the presence of specific witnesses.
Who are the mandatory witnesses required by Section 21?	The mandatory witnesses are the accused (or their representative), a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.
Why is the presence of these witnesses important?	Their presence is crucial to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drugs, ensuring the integrity and credibility of the evidence. It serves as a safeguard against potential abuses and ensures a fair trial for the accused.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Failure to comply with Section 21 can render the seized evidence inadmissible in court, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused, unless the prosecution can provide a justifiable reason for the non-compliance and demonstrate that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
What is the “saving clause” in the IRR of RA 9165?	The “saving clause” allows for deviations from strict compliance with Section 21 under exceptional circumstances, provided that the prosecution recognizes the lapse and justifies it, and demonstrates that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What is the presumption of regularity?	The presumption of regularity assumes that law enforcement officers perform their duties in a regular manner. However, this presumption cannot override the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent, especially when there is evidence of irregularity.
What was the final ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and acquitted Benjie Caranto, finding that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to the multiple unexplained breaches of procedure in the seizure, custody, and handling of the seized drug.

This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that the presence of mandatory witnesses and strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 are essential to ensure the integrity of evidence and prevent potential abuses in buy-bust operations.

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. Caranto, G.R. No. 217668, February 20, 2019