In People v. Alex Escaran y Tariman, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, a critical element in drug-related cases. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The ruling reinforces the principle that any unexplained gaps in the chain of custody cast reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, warranting the acquittal of the accused, thereby upholding their constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

When Anti-Drug Operations Overshadow Constitutional Rights: The Case of Alex Escaran

The case revolves around Alex Escaran’s arrest and subsequent conviction for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. According to the prosecution, on March 21, 2004, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation based on information that Escaran was selling shabu. PO1 Veraño, acting as the poseur-buyer, allegedly purchased two packets of shabu from Escaran. Subsequently, Escaran was arrested, and a search revealed four additional packets of shabu in his possession.

Escaran, however, denied the charges, claiming he was waiting for a co-worker when approached by individuals asking to buy shabu. He directed them elsewhere, but they insisted he accompany them, eventually revealing themselves as police officers and arresting him. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Escaran guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court took a different view, focusing on critical lapses in the handling of evidence.

At the heart of this case is Section 21 of RA 9165, which meticulously outlines the procedures law enforcement must follow to preserve the integrity of seized drugs. This section mandates that seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, a media representative, and a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative. All parties must sign the inventory, and the drugs must be delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours.

The purpose of these stringent requirements, as emphasized in People v. Tomawis, is to prevent the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. The Court stressed the necessity of having witnesses from the DOJ, media, and public office to provide an “insulating presence” during the seizure and marking of drugs. Without this insulating presence, the Court stated, the risk of evidence switching or planting rears its ugly head, negating the integrity of the evidence.

In Escaran’s case, the Supreme Court found several critical breaches of these mandatory procedures. First, there was no clear evidence of when and where the seized drugs were marked, nor was it established that the marking occurred in Escaran’s presence. The Court, citing People v. Ameril, emphasized that marking should be done immediately upon seizure and in the presence of the accused to ensure the integrity of the evidence.

Second, PO1 Veraño admitted that no inventory or photographs of the seized items were taken at the scene. Instead, Escaran was immediately taken to the police station for interrogation. This failure to comply with the inventory and photography requirements raised serious concerns about the handling of the evidence. PO1 Veraño’s testimony revealed a lack of adherence to established protocols, further undermining the prosecution’s case.

Third, and perhaps most significantly, none of the required witnesses under Section 21 were present at the place of seizure or even at the police station. The Court reiterated that the presence of these witnesses is not a mere formality but a mandatory requirement designed to safeguard against potential abuse and ensure the integrity of the process. The absence of these witnesses cast a shadow of doubt over the entire operation.

The prosecution argued that the failure to strictly comply with Section 21 should not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the items if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. However, the Court emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proving both a justifiable ground for non-compliance and the preservation of the integrity of the evidence. In Escaran’s case, the prosecution failed to provide any justifiable explanation for the procedural lapses.

Moreover, the Court found that gaps existed in the chain of custody, creating reasonable doubt about the identity and integrity of the seized items. PO1 Veraño testified that the sachets were turned over to PCI Enguerra, who then gave them to SPO1 Enriquez for the preparation of a laboratory examination request. However, the records lacked details on how the specimens were handled between these transfers. The testimonies of the police officers were vague, failing to establish a clear chain of possession.

Even the forensic chemist, PSI Salinas, did not testify on how she handled the seized items during examination. Instead, the parties merely made stipulations, which did not adequately demonstrate how the drugs were preserved. This lack of testimony further weakened the prosecution’s case, leaving significant gaps in the chain of custody. The absence of a clear and unbroken chain of custody, coupled with the failure to comply with Section 21, proved fatal to the prosecution’s case.

The Court also addressed the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, often invoked in cases involving law enforcement. However, the Court clarified that this presumption cannot override the accused’s constitutionally protected right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In cases where there are clear lapses in procedure, the presumption of regularity crumbles, as the lapses themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that even the internal anti-drug operation procedures outlined in the 1999 PNP Drug Enforcement Manual were not followed in this case. These procedures require meticulous inventory, detailed receipts, proper marking, and photographic documentation of the seized evidence. The failure to adhere to these internal protocols further undermined the credibility of the police operation.

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offenses of sale and possession of illegal drugs due to the multiple unexplained breaches of procedure committed by the buy-bust team. As such, the Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted Escaran, underscoring the importance of safeguarding constitutional rights and adhering to established procedures in drug-related cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165, and whether the police officers complied with mandatory procedural safeguards.
What is the significance of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 outlines the procedures law enforcement must follow to preserve the integrity of seized drugs, including immediate inventory, photographing, and the presence of required witnesses, all to prevent tampering or planting of evidence.
Why were the required witnesses not present during the seizure?	The records do not show any justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses during the seizure and inventory of the drugs. The prosecution failed to provide any explanation for this lapse.
What did the Supreme Court say about the presumption of regularity?	The Supreme Court clarified that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot override the accused’s right to be presumed innocent, especially when there are clear procedural lapses.
What gaps were found in the chain of custody?	The Court identified gaps in how the seized drugs were handled from the time they were handed to PCI Enguerra to the time they were delivered to SPO1 Enriquez, and until they were submitted to PSI Salinas for examination, undermining the integrity of the evidence.
What internal procedures were not followed by the police?	The police failed to adhere to the 1999 PNP Drug Enforcement Manual, which requires meticulous inventory, detailed receipts, proper marking, and photographic documentation of seized evidence.
What is corpus delicti and why is it important in drug cases?	The corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, which in drug cases is the seized drug itself. Its identity and integrity must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.
What was the ultimate outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Alex Escaran due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody and the multiple unexplained breaches of procedure committed by the buy-bust team.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Alex Escaran y Tariman serves as a potent reminder of the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. It underscores the importance of protecting constitutional rights and ensuring that law enforcement actions are conducted within the boundaries of the law. This ruling reinforces the principle that any unexplained gaps in the chain of custody cast reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, warranting the acquittal of the accused.

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. Escaran, G.R. No. 212170, June 19, 2019