In drug-related cases, the integrity of evidence is paramount. The Supreme Court, in People v. Edwin Nieves, emphasized that failure to adhere strictly to the chain of custody rule, particularly the required presence of insulating witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs, can lead to acquittal. This ruling reinforces the importance of protecting individuals from potential abuses in anti-narcotics operations and ensures that the State meets its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Missing Witnesses: Can a Buy-Bust Stand Without Proper Oversight?

The case of Edwin Nieves began with a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers in Iba, Zambales. Nieves was accused of selling 0.029 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution presented testimonies from PO1 Rudico D. Angulo and PO2 Wilfredo F. Devera, who claimed to have conducted the buy-bust operation. They stated that PO1 Angulo acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased the illegal drugs from Nieves.

However, Nieves contested these claims, asserting that he was mistakenly apprehended instead of his brother, Jun Jun Nieves. He also alleged that the police officers forced him to admit that he was his brother. His wife corroborated his account, stating that the police officers initially were looking for Jun Jun Nieves. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Nieves, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA gave more credence to the testimony of the police officers and stated the chain of custody of dangerous drugs was sufficiently proven to be unbroken. The RTC ruled that the prosecution proved that the chain of custody rule in drugs cases was followed by the police officers involved in this case. The RTC traced the chain of custody of the seized item from the place of apprehension to its transmission to court.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower courts’ decisions, focusing primarily on the lapses in the chain of custody. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the prosecution must prove the corpus delicti, which is the body of the crime. In other words, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law. Compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such operation. Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.

Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs to maintain their integrity as evidence. This section requires the inventory and photographing of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation. The same inventory must be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. According to the Court, this must be so because with “the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great.”

In this case, the Supreme Court noted that the buy-bust operation was conducted without the presence of any of the three insulating witnesses. PO1 Angulo and PO2 Devera claimed they were only accompanied by other police officers. This was further substantiated by PO2 Devera’s testimony in court. The inventory was subsequently conducted at the police station without any explanation as to why it was impracticable to do the same at the place of apprehension. More importantly, only two of the three required witnesses – the DOJ representative and the elective official – were present in the conduct of the inventory.

The Court also addressed the issue of the missing media representative. PO1 Angulo initially claimed that a media representative was present but he was unable to recall their name. PO2 Devera later testified that there was no media representative, citing a “written manifesto” from media practitioners requesting exclusion from anti-drug operations. The Supreme Court dismissed this “written manifesto” as insufficient justification for deviating from the prescribed procedure. The Court stated that the requirements of the law cannot be set aside by the simple expedient of a “written manifesto”. The Court emphasized that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose.

The Supreme Court quoted People v. Tomawis, elucidating on the purpose of the law in mandating the presence of the required witnesses as follows:

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. 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 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.

The prosecution has the burden of proving their compliance with Section 21, RA 9165, and providing a sufficient explanation in case of non-compliance. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the absence of the required witnesses during the buy-bust operation and inventory. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were thus compromised. Furthermore, the inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimonies cast reasonable doubt on Nieves’ guilt. Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted Nieves, citing reasonable doubt due to the compromised chain of custody and inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimonies. The Court also directed the National Police Commission to conduct an investigation on the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation.

This case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of adhering to the procedures outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165. Law enforcement officers must ensure the presence of the required witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs to maintain the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused. Furthermore, prosecutors must diligently discharge their onus to prove compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, and its IRR, which is fundamental in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. The procedure outlined in Section 21 is straightforward and easy to comply with. In the presentation of evidence to prove compliance therewith, the prosecutors are enjoined to recognize any deviation from the prescribed procedure and provide the explanation therefor as dictated by available evidence.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the rights of individuals facing drug charges and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable and untainted evidence. It reiterates that while the pursuit of justice is essential, it must never come at the expense of due process and fundamental rights.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the chain of custody of the seized drugs, particularly regarding the presence of required witnesses during the seizure and inventory.
Who are the required witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs?	The required witnesses are the accused or their representative, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.
What happens if the required witnesses are not present during the seizure and inventory?	The absence of the required witnesses can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused, unless the prosecution can provide justifiable reasons for the non-compliance.
What is the significance of the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody ensures that the drug presented in court is the same drug seized from the accused, preventing tampering, substitution, or planting of evidence.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Edwin Nieves due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, particularly the absence of required witnesses during the seizure and inventory.
Can a “written manifesto” from media practitioners excuse the absence of a media representative?	No, the Supreme Court held that a “written manifesto” does not justify the police officers’ deviation from the prescribed procedure of having a media representative present.
What is the prosecution’s responsibility in establishing compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165?	The prosecution has the burden of proving their compliance with Section 21, RA 9165, and providing a sufficient explanation in case of non-compliance.
What action did the Supreme Court order regarding the police officers involved?	The Supreme Court directed the National Police Commission to conduct an investigation on the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation.

This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect individual rights and ensure fair trials. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement officers and prosecutors to diligently comply with the requirements of RA 9165 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, VS. EDWIN NIEVES Y ACUAVERA A.K.A. “ADING”, G.R. No. 239787, June 19, 2019