In the Philippines, the integrity of evidence is paramount in drug-related cases. The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Joey Nabua y Campos emphasizes the critical importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule. This rule ensures that the substance presented in court as evidence is the same substance that was seized from the accused. The Court acquitted Joey Nabua due to significant lapses in the chain of custody, highlighting the prosecution’s failure to properly account for the handling of the seized drugs. This ruling reinforces the necessity for law enforcement to strictly comply with procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

When Missing Witnesses Cast Doubt: A Drug Case Undone by Procedural Lapses

The case of People of the Philippines v. Joey Nabua y Campos revolves around an alleged buy-bust operation where Joey Nabua was accused of selling shabu, or methamphetamine hydrochloride, in Rosario, La Union. Nabua was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Nabua sold a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing shabu to a police officer acting as a poseur buyer. However, the defense argued that the police officers failed to follow the proper procedures in handling the seized evidence, particularly concerning the chain of custody. This discrepancy ultimately led to a challenge of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, raising the central legal question of whether the prosecution had successfully proven Nabua’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

At the heart of this case is the chain of custody rule, which is crucial in drug-related offenses. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Therefore, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody to ensure that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused. Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedure for handling confiscated drugs, which includes immediate inventory and photographing of the items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 further elaborate on these requirements. Section 21(a) mandates that the inventory and photograph must be conducted immediately after seizure. It also provides a proviso that non-compliance with these requirements may be excused under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, the Court stressed that the prosecution must prove these justifiable grounds as fact. Here, the Court found critical gaps in the chain of custody, primarily the absence of media and DOJ representatives during the inventory and photographing of the seized items.

The testimonies of SPO1 Vargas and SPO1 Ofiaza, the arresting officers, revealed that no representatives from the DOJ or the media were present during the inventory. SPO1 Vargas admitted, “I do not know, sir, from our chief of police,” when asked why these representatives were absent. SPO1 Ofiaza also confirmed that he did not coordinate with the DOJ. The Court highlighted that the insulating presence of these witnesses is essential to preserve an unbroken chain of custody. Their absence, without any justifiable explanation, constituted a serious lapse in procedure.

The Supreme Court cited several similar cases to support its decision. In People v. Abelarde, the accused was acquitted because there was no evidence that the inventory and photograph of seized drugs were done in the presence of a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. Likewise, in People v. Macud, the buy-bust team failed to secure the presence of these essential witnesses, leading to an acquittal. Furthermore, in People v. Año, the prosecution offered no explanation for the absence of media and DOJ representatives, resulting in the Court ruling against the finding of guilt.

Another critical gap in the chain of custody occurred during the delivery of the seized drug to the crime laboratory. The records lacked any evidence demonstrating how the seized drug was handled before, during, and after it came into the custody of forensic chemist PSI Manuel. The parties merely stipulated that PSI Manuel received the specimens and found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. However, no evidence was presented on how PSI Manuel took precautionary steps to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug while it remained in her possession and prior to its presentation in court.

In People v. Hementiza, the Court acquitted the accused because the records were devoid of any evidence on how the illegal drugs were brought to the court. The forensic chemist only testified that she confirmed the substance contained in the sachets was positive for shabu. Similar to the case at hand, there was no evidence of how the shabu was stored, preserved, labeled, or who had custody of it before it was presented in court. These breaches in the chain of custody rule were considered fatal flaws that effectively destroyed the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.

The Court acknowledged that a perfect chain of custody may be impossible to achieve due to varying field conditions. However, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 provides a saving clause, allowing leniency under justifiable grounds. The twin conditions for this saving clause to apply are: (a) the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses; and (b) the integrity and value of the seized evidence had been preserved. In this case, the prosecution failed to offer any explanation to excuse the buy-bust team’s failure to comply with the chain of custody rule, thereby failing to meet the conditions for the saving clause to apply.

The Supreme Court cited People v. Crispo, which aptly summarizes the situation:

An examination of the records reveals that while the inventory and photography of the seized items were made in the presence of two (2) elected public officials, i.e., Barangay Kagawads Ramon Amtolim and Helen Tolentino, as evidenced by their signatures on the Receipt of Property/Evidence Seized, the same were not done in the presence of representatives from either the DOJ and the media.

In this case, despite the non-observance of the witness requirement, no plausible explanation was given by the prosecution.

Verily, the procedural lapses committed by the arresting officers, which were unfortunately left unjustified, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against Crispo, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised, xxx As such, since the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for noncompliance with the aforesaid provision, Crispo’s acquittal is perforce in order.

The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot substitute for compliance with the chain of custody rule. In this case, the presumption was overturned by compelling evidence of serious breaches in the chain of custody. Allowing the presumption to prevail despite clear errors by the police would negate the safeguards designed to prevent abuse. Therefore, the Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and acquitted Joey Nabua.

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, ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. The Court found that the prosecution failed to meet this requirement due to significant procedural lapses.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the documented and authorized movement and custody of seized drugs, from the time of seizure to presentation in court. It ensures that the evidence presented is the same as what was originally seized.
Why is the chain of custody rule important in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule is crucial because it safeguards against tampering, alteration, or substitution of the seized drugs. This ensures the reliability and integrity of the evidence, protecting the rights of the accused.
What are the requirements for the initial custody and control of drugs under RA 9165?	Under Section 21 of RA 9165, the apprehending team must immediately inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. These individuals must sign the inventory, and each should receive a copy.
What happens if the police fail to comply with these requirements?	Non-compliance may be excused if there are justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, the prosecution must prove these justifiable grounds.
What was the main reason for the acquittal in this case?	The acquittal was primarily due to the absence of media and DOJ representatives during the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, without any justifiable explanation from the prosecution. The court cited this as a serious breach of the chain of custody rule.
Can the presumption of regularity substitute for compliance with the chain of custody rule?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot substitute for compliance with the chain of custody rule. The prosecution must affirmatively prove that the proper procedures were followed.
What is the effect of a broken chain of custody on a drug case?	A broken chain of custody compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, which can lead to the acquittal of the accused. The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Joey Nabua y Campos serves as a stark reminder of the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. Law enforcement agencies must ensure that all requirements of the chain of custody rule are meticulously followed to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The absence of essential witnesses and the lack of documentation regarding the handling of seized drugs can have severe consequences, potentially leading to the 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. Nabua, G.R. No. 235785, August 14, 2019