In People v. Macaumbang and Sagarbaria, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs, as required by Republic Act No. 9165. The Court emphasized that strict adherence to procedural safeguards is essential to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of drug evidence. This ruling highlights the importance of meticulous documentation and witness testimony in drug cases, ensuring that the evidence presented in court is the same as that seized from the accused, thus preventing wrongful convictions.

Bungled Buy-Bust: When Procedural Lapses Free Accused Drug Dealers

The case revolves around a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) against Nasrollah Macaumbang and Jose Sagarbaria, who were accused of selling 98.05 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found them guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court (SC) reversed these decisions, focusing on the critical issue of whether the prosecution adequately complied with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the law which punishes the sale of dangerous drugs, states:

SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

The prosecution must prove the identities of the buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and the existence of the corpus delicti. The prosecution must show the evidence presented in court is the same drug that was recovered from the accused, without a doubt. The Supreme Court scrutinized the procedures followed by the arresting officers, particularly regarding the handling, documentation, and preservation of the seized drugs.

The implementing rules and regulations of R.A. No. 9165 provide detailed guidelines for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. These rules mandate that:

(1) The apprehending officer/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: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.

The court emphasized that these procedures are substantive law and cannot be disregarded. The case revealed several critical lapses in the chain of custody. First, the seized item was not marked immediately upon seizure. Instead, it was transported from Muntinlupa to Quezon City before being marked and inventoried. Second, there was conflicting testimony regarding who had possession of the seized item during transportation. Third, a key individual in the chain of custody, Police Senior Inspector Manan Muarip, was not presented as a witness, nor was there any stipulation regarding his handling of the evidence.

The chain of custody is defined as:

Duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs 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.

This definition ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. In Mallillin v. People, the Supreme Court clarified the requirements for establishing an unbroken chain of custody, stating that it includes “testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence.”

The court found the prosecution’s evidence deficient in several respects. PO3 Jonathan Cruz testified that he gave the seized item to PSI Manan Muarip, who then carried the item to their office in Camp Crame. On the other hand, SPO1 Tomas Calicdan stated that he saw Cruz holding the evidence bag as they went downstairs. The seized item was also transported from Muntinlupa to Quezon City before it was marked and inventoried, exposing the item to possible tampering. These inconsistencies and procedural lapses raised doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

These are the links required to comply with the rule of the chain of custody:

• First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
• Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
• Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
• Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

The fourth link in the chain of custody, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court, was also inadequately established. While the parties stipulated on the forensic chemist’s findings, there was no testimony or documentation regarding who had custody of the seized item after the examination and how it was handled until its presentation in court. The Supreme Court has previously held that failing to reveal the identity of the person who had custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination constitutes a failure to establish the chain of custody.

Moreover, the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs were not conducted in the presence of all the required witnesses. Only a barangay kagawad (village councilman) was present, while representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media were absent. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates the presence of these witnesses to ensure transparency and prevent tampering of evidence. The prosecution did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the absence of these witnesses.

Despite the saving clause in Sec. 21 providing some leniency, this did not cure the defects in the case at bench. The court noted that the prosecution did not offer an acceptable explanation as to the noncompliance with procedure. The police officers did not present evidence of efforts to assure the presence of DOJ or media representatives, and therefore there was no excuse for noncompliance with the witness requirements of Sec. 21.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Macaumbang and Sagarbaria beyond reasonable doubt. The numerous procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the chain of custody, coupled with the absence of required witnesses during the inventory, compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately complied with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, ensuring the integrity and admissibility of the drug evidence. The Court focused on the procedures followed by the arresting officers and that all links must be recorded and accounted for to make sure the evidence presented has not been tampered.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of possession and handling of seized drugs, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. Each person who handles the evidence must be identified, and the circumstances of possession must be documented to ensure the integrity of the evidence.
What are the required steps under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to immediately inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and an elected public official. These steps must be meticulously documented to ensure the evidence’s integrity.
Why is the presence of specific witnesses important during the inventory?	The presence of representatives from the media, the DOJ, and an elected public official aims to ensure transparency and prevent any tampering or substitution of the seized drugs. Their presence serves as a safeguard against potential abuse and maintains the integrity of the process.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are compromised. This can lead to the exclusion of the evidence and the acquittal of the accused, as the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs presented in court are the same as those seized.
Can non-compliance with Section 21 be excused?	Non-compliance with Section 21 may be excused under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. However, the prosecution must provide a credible explanation for the deviation from the prescribed procedures.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Macaumbang and Sagarbaria. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the absence of required witnesses during the inventory.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	This ruling emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow the chain of custody requirements and ensure transparency in handling seized drugs.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the necessity of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the judicial process. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow the chain of custody requirements and ensure transparency in handling seized drugs, lest they risk having their cases dismissed due to procedural lapses.

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. NASROLLAH MACAUMBANG, G.R. No. 208836, April 01, 2019