In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Jocelyn Maneclang of drug-related charges due to a failure in establishing an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. This decision underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, particularly Section 21, which governs the handling of confiscated drugs. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s failure to properly document and preserve the integrity of the evidence compromised the case, leading to the accused’s acquittal. This ruling serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements that law enforcement must meet in drug cases to ensure justice and protect individual rights.

From Buy-Bust to Botched Evidence: Can an Arrest Stand Without Chain of Custody?

The case began with a buy-bust operation conducted by the Manila Police District (MPD) in Sampaloc, Manila, targeting a certain “Muslim” allegedly involved in illegal drug activities. After receiving information from a confidential informant, PO2 Mario Anthony Aresta, acting as the poseur-buyer, engaged with Jocelyn Maneclang, who offered to sell shabu when “Muslim” was not around. Subsequently, Maneclang was arrested, and several sachets of suspected shabu were seized from her possession. She was charged with violations of Sections 5 (illegal sale) and 11 (illegal possession) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. However, the subsequent handling of the seized evidence became the focal point of the legal challenge. During the arrest the buy bust team did not follow Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Maneclang guilty beyond reasonable doubt, giving weight to the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers’ duties. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, emphasizing the validity of the warrantless arrest and the subsequent search and seizure. Maneclang appealed, arguing that her arrest was illegal, and the integrity of the seized items was not preserved due to a broken chain of custody. The Supreme Court, in a reversal, focused on the procedural lapses in handling the evidence, ultimately acquitting Maneclang. Despite affirming the validity of the warrantless arrest, the Supreme Court found the prosecution’s case lacking due to critical breaches in the chain of custody.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of Maneclang’s warrantless arrest. Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for arrests without a warrant under specific circumstances, including when a person is caught in the act of committing an offense. In this case, PO2 Aresta witnessed Maneclang selling illegal drugs, justifying the warrantless arrest. The Court highlighted that the two key elements for a valid warrantless arrest under this rule were present: an overt act indicating the commission of a crime and the act being done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Therefore, the arrest was deemed lawful. Even if the accused was not the target of the buy-bust operation, the arrest is valid as long as the accused performs some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

Despite the legality of the arrest, the Supreme Court underscored the critical importance of establishing an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The chain of custody rule, as outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165, requires strict adherence to procedures in handling seized drugs to maintain their evidentiary value. The law mandates that the apprehending team, after seizure, must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the drugs 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 of whom must sign the inventory.

In Maneclang’s case, critical procedural lapses occurred. While the sachets were marked at the place of arrest, the required inventory was not conducted there due to a commotion. The inventory was later performed at the police station, but without the presence of the mandatory insulating witnesses which included elected public officials and representatives from the DOJ and the media. The police officers claimed that no insulating witnesses were present during the turnover. PO2 Aresta testified that a Kagawad (Barangay official) arrived but questioned the operation and did not witness the preparation of the inventory. The absence of these witnesses and their signatures on the inventory receipt raised serious concerns about the integrity of the seized items.

The Supreme Court referenced People v. Lim, highlighting that the failure to secure the presence of these witnesses undermines the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The Court emphasized that honest-to-goodness efforts must be made to comply with the witness requirement, and mere statements of unavailability are insufficient. The prosecution failed to provide specific evidence of genuine attempts to secure the attendance of these witnesses, further weakening their case. The insulating witnesses are very important in deterring the common practice of planting evidence.

Furthermore, the chain of custody suffered a crucial break after the drugs were delivered to the MPD Crime Laboratory Service. While the Request for Laboratory Examination indicated that PCI Calabocal, the forensic chemist, received the drugs, he did not sign the receipt. Moreover, PCI Calabocal was not presented as a witness, and the stipulation regarding his testimony only covered the examination results, not the source of the substance. This absence of a clear link between PO2 Aresta and PCI Calabocal created an unbridgeable gap in the chain of custody. The four links that must be established in the chain of custody include: 1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug confiscated from the accused by the apprehending officer; 2) the turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; 3) the turnover by the investigating officer of said item to the forensic chemist for examination; and, 4) the turnover and submission thereof from [the] forensic chemist to the court.

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crimes and establish an unbroken chain of custody. Due to the breaches of procedure committed by the apprehending officers, the Court found that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crimes and to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty accorded to the apprehending officers cannot, therefore, arise. As a result, Jocelyn Maneclang was acquitted, reinforcing the necessity of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165, to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.
Why was the accused acquitted?	The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically the lack of insulating witnesses during the inventory and a break in the chain of custody between the arresting officer and the forensic chemist.
What are insulating witnesses?	Insulating witnesses, as required by RA 9165, are representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official, who must be present during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs to ensure transparency and prevent planting of evidence.
What is the chain of custody?	The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers and handling of evidence, from seizure to presentation in court, ensuring that the integrity and identity of the evidence are preserved. Each person who handled the evidence must be accounted for.
What constitutes a valid warrantless arrest in this case?	A valid warrantless arrest occurred because the accused was caught in the act of selling illegal drugs to the poseur-buyer, satisfying the requirements of an in flagrante delicto arrest under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Why is the presence of insulating witnesses important?	The presence of insulating witnesses is crucial to deter the practice of planting evidence and to ensure transparency and accountability in the handling of seized drugs, safeguarding the rights of the accused.
What did the Supreme Court emphasize about compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165?	The Supreme Court emphasized that strict adherence to the mandatory requirements of Section 21 may be excused as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items were properly preserved.
What was the unbridged gap in the link of the chain of custody?	The unbridged gap was that the forensic chemist was not presented as a witness, and the stipulation regarding his testimony only covered the examination results, not on the source of the substance, there was no stipulation that he indeed received the seized drugs from PO2 Aresta.

This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that law enforcement adheres to procedural safeguards in drug cases. The stringent requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 are not mere formalities but essential measures to prevent abuse and maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to prioritize proper evidence handling and documentation to secure convictions that withstand legal scrutiny.

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, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOCELYN MANECLANG Y ABDON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 230337, June 17, 2019