In a ruling that reinforces protections against unlawful convictions, the Supreme Court acquitted Jordan Casaclang Dela Cruz due to critical failures in the chain of custody of evidence. The court emphasized that strict adherence to protocols for handling seized drugs is paramount, and any unjustified noncompliance invalidates the presumption of regularity in police procedures, upholding the accused’s constitutional right to presumption of innocence.

When Missing Witnesses Lead to Reasonable Doubt: The Case of Jordan Dela Cruz

The case of People of the Philippines v. Jordan Casaclang Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 229053, July 17, 2019) revolves around Dela Cruz’s conviction for the illegal sale and possession of marijuana. The prosecution presented evidence stemming from a buy-bust operation, but significant procedural lapses in handling the seized drugs led to a critical examination of the evidence’s integrity. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the absence of mandatory witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs, as required by Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act), warranted Dela Cruz’s acquittal.

The arrest and initial handling of evidence are governed by Section 21 of R.A. 9165, which outlines stringent procedures. This section requires an immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media. These requirements aim to ensure transparency and prevent tampering or planting of evidence. Compliance with these rules is not merely procedural; it is fundamental to protecting the accused’s rights. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the integrity of the corpus delicti—the actual body of the crime—must be preserved to sustain a conviction.

The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. However, it was undisputed that no elected official, Department of Justice representative, or media representative was present during the inventory of the seized drugs. This absence raised serious questions about the integrity of the evidence. The prosecution argued that there was substantial compliance with the law, citing the fact that the buy-bust team photographed the seized items and marked them at the crime scene. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, highlighting the importance of strict compliance with the law.

The Court referred to the four critical links in the chain of custody, as laid out in People v. Nandi:

[T]he following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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 absence of third-party witnesses at the initial stage compromises the first link, casting doubt on whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from Dela Cruz. In addressing this gap, the Court examined whether the prosecution had presented justifiable grounds for non-compliance, as provided under the amended Section 21 of R.A. 9165. This amendment allows for deviations from the strict requirements if the prosecution can demonstrate justifiable reasons and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

In this case, the prosecution offered the excuse of time constraints and uncertainty about Dela Cruz’s appearance at the meeting place. The Supreme Court found this justification insufficient. The court noted that the police officers had conducted a week-long surveillance of Dela Cruz, providing ample time to coordinate with potential witnesses. The Court emphasized that “earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven,” referencing People v. Ramos. The prosecution failed to show that they made any genuine attempts to secure the presence of the required witnesses. A mere statement of unavailability is not enough; the police must demonstrate that they took serious steps to find other representatives.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court rejected the prosecution’s reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The Court stated that non-compliance with Section 21 “negates the presumption of regularity accorded to acts undertaken by police officers in the pursuit of their official duties.” As the Court explained in People v. Kamad:

Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.

The Supreme Court underscored the importance of upholding the constitutional presumption of innocence. The prosecution’s failure to establish all the elements of the crime and to properly identify the seized drugs as the same ones presented in court created reasonable doubt. This doubt required the Court to acquit Dela Cruz. This ruling sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies: strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases is not optional; it is a constitutional imperative.

The Court did not simply offer a slap on the wrist. It emphasized that the war on drugs must be waged within the bounds of the law. Shortcuts and deviations from established procedures undermine the integrity of the justice system and erode public trust. This decision underscores the importance of protecting individual rights, even in the face of pressing social problems. By strictly enforcing the chain of custody requirements, the Court aims to prevent wrongful convictions and ensure that only those who are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are punished.

The implications of this decision extend beyond the specific facts of Dela Cruz’s case. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to prioritize compliance with procedural safeguards in all drug-related operations. This includes ensuring the presence of mandatory witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs, as well as maintaining a clear and unbroken chain of custody. Failure to do so can result in the suppression of evidence and the acquittal of the accused.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the absence of an elected public official, a Department of Justice representative, and a media representative during the buy-bust operation and inventory of seized drugs warranted the accused’s acquittal. The Supreme Court focused on the strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
What is the ‘chain of custody’ in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers and handling of evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. Each person who handles the evidence must be identified, and a record must be kept to ensure the integrity and identity of the evidence.
Why is the chain of custody so important?	Maintaining the chain of custody prevents tampering, substitution, or loss of evidence, which could compromise the fairness and accuracy of the trial. It ensures that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused.
What does Section 21 of R.A. 9165 require?	Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph seized drugs immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the Department of Justice or the media.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Non-compliance with Section 21 can render the seized evidence inadmissible in court, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused, unless the prosecution can provide justifiable reasons for the non-compliance and prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
Can the prosecution rely on the presumption of regularity in drug cases?	The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties does not apply if there are significant lapses in following the procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165. Compliance with the law is required before the presumption can be invoked.
What is the role of third-party witnesses?	Third-party witnesses, such as elected officials and media representatives, serve as safeguards against the possibility of planting evidence or tampering with seized drugs. Their presence helps ensure transparency and accountability.
What is required to show that the prosecution exerted effort to secure the attendance of the third party witnesses?	The prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for “a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse.”

This Supreme Court ruling reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in drug cases, emphasizing that strict adherence to the chain of custody requirements is essential to protect the rights of the accused and ensure fair trials. Law enforcement agencies must prioritize compliance with these requirements to avoid the suppression of evidence and the potential acquittal of guilty individuals.

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. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 229053, July 17, 2019