In a ruling that reinforces the stringent requirements for handling drug evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted Oscar Pedracio Gabriel, Jr. due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere to the chain of custody rule as mandated by Republic Act No. 9165. The Court emphasized that the integrity and identity of seized drugs must be established with moral certainty, and any deviation from the prescribed procedures without justifiable explanation can lead to the accused’s acquittal, underscoring the importance of meticulously following protocol in drug-related cases to protect individual rights.

When Police Procedure Falters: A Drug Case Dismissed

Oscar Pedracio Gabriel, Jr. faced charges for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, after a buy-bust operation conducted by the Antipolo City Police. The prosecution alleged that Gabriel sold a sachet of shabu to a poseur-buyer and was later found in possession of seven more sachets. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized the actions of the buy-bust team and found significant lapses in their adherence to the mandatory procedures for handling evidence.

The legal framework governing drug-related cases in the Philippines, particularly Republic Act No. 9165, emphasizes the importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs. This requirement is crucial to ensure that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence that was seized from the accused. Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the specific steps that law enforcement officers must follow to preserve the integrity of the confiscated drugs:

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the police officers must strictly follow to preserve the integrity of the confiscated drugs and/or paraphernalia used as evidence. The provision requires that: (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same and the seized drugs must be turned over to a forensic laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination.

In Gabriel’s case, the buy-bust team failed to comply with several critical aspects of Section 21. Firstly, the arresting officers did not mark or photograph the seized illegal drugs at the place of arrest. Instead, these procedures were conducted later at the police station. Secondly, none of the three required witnesses—an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice—were present during the seizure and apprehension. This absence raised serious questions about the integrity of the evidence and the potential for contamination or tampering. In People v. Tomawis, the Court emphasized the importance of these 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. The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug.

The prosecution’s failure to provide any justification for these procedural lapses proved fatal to their case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that strict compliance with Section 21 is essential unless there are justifiable grounds for non-compliance, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving these grounds. Without such justification, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items become questionable, leading to reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution admitted to conducting the inventory at the police station without explaining why it was not practicable at the place of arrest, and to conducting the inventory without any of the required witnesses.

The lower courts, in their decisions, relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by the police officers. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this presumption cannot override the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must first establish the basic facts that trigger the presumption of regularity, and any hint of irregularity committed by the police officers negates this presumption. In People v. Catalan, the Court stated:

We remind the 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 Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Gabriel underscores the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in RA 9165. These safeguards are designed to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of the evidence in drug-related cases. The failure to comply with these procedures, without justifiable explanation, can lead to the suppression of evidence and the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case.

This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement officers that they must meticulously follow the prescribed procedures when conducting buy-bust operations and handling drug evidence. It also highlights the importance of the prosecution’s role in ensuring that these procedures are followed and that any deviations are justified. The decision reinforces the principle that the rights of the accused must be protected, and that the presumption of innocence prevails over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody for 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 follow specific procedures for handling drug evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, to ensure its integrity and identity.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 requires the seized items to be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative.
Why are the three witnesses required to be present during the seizure?	The presence of the three witnesses is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug, and to ensure the integrity of the evidence.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	If the police fail to comply with Section 21 without justifiable explanation, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items become questionable, and the accused may be acquitted.
Can the presumption of regularity overcome the failure to comply with Section 21?	No, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, especially when there are clear lapses in procedure.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Court acquitted Gabriel because the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, due to the buy-bust team’s non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in RA 9165 to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of the evidence in drug-related cases.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of due process and adherence to legal procedures in drug-related cases. It underscores that while the fight against illegal drugs is a priority, it must be conducted within the bounds of the law, with full respect for the rights of the accused. Law enforcement agencies must ensure strict compliance with the chain of custody rule to maintain the integrity of evidence and uphold the principles 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, V. OSCAR PEDRACIO GABRIEL, JR., G.R. No. 228002, June 10, 2019