In a ruling that underscores the critical importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody in drug-related cases, the Supreme Court acquitted Nomer Wisco y Failano due to significant gaps in the prosecution’s handling of evidence. This decision emphasizes that the integrity of seized drugs, from the point of confiscation to its presentation in court, must be rigorously preserved to ensure a fair trial. Failing to establish each link in the chain of custody can lead to reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal, regardless of the initial circumstances of the arrest.

Unraveling the Chain: Did Procedural Lapses Free a Suspected Drug Dealer?

The case began with a buy-bust operation conducted by the Pasuquin Municipal Police Station following a tip about Nomer Wisco’s alleged drug dealing activities. PO1 Alexon Rosal, acting as the poseur-buyer, purportedly purchased a sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) from Wisco. Following his arrest, another sachet was allegedly found in Wisco’s possession. These events led to Wisco’s charge and subsequent conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision. However, the Supreme Court took a different view, focusing on the procedural lapses in handling the evidence.

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision is the concept of chain of custody. This refers to the documented sequence of individuals who handle evidence, demonstrating who had control over it and when. According to Section 1 (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, chain of custody involves the “duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs…from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.” This ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence throughout the legal process. The goal is to prevent tampering, alteration, or substitution of the seized items.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the prosecution’s evidence, identifying critical gaps in the chain of custody. First, during the initial inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, not all mandatory witnesses as required by Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 were present. This section specifies the presence of the accused (or their representative), a media representative, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and an elected public official. In this case, only Barangay Chairman Armando Aguinaldo and two Barangay Kagawads were present. The Barangay Chairman himself later testified that he did not witness the marking or photographing of the evidence, and that no DOJ or media representatives were present.

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible. However, the prosecution must then provide justifiable reasons for non-compliance. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 provides a saving clause so that noncompliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 will not automatically render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items, to wit:

(a)

The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

The prosecution failed to provide any explanation for the absence of the required witnesses, leading the Court to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been compromised. This failure alone significantly weakened the prosecution’s case.

Further complicating matters were inconsistencies in the testimony of PO3 Lumiowel Bulosan, who was involved in the transfer of the seized drugs. PO1 Rosal testified that he handed over the seized drugs to PO3 Bulosan, however, the Court observed that PO3 Bulosan’s name and signature were absent from the Chain of Custody Form as the immediate recipient of the seized drugs after PO1 Rosal. PO3 Bulosan’s testimonies during direct and cross-examination regarding his custody and turnover of the drugs also presented conflicting accounts. Initially, he stated that PO1 Kingslay Luna delivered the drugs to PO3 Mervin Reyes at the crime laboratory, but later claimed that PO2 Jully Bacud was responsible for this transfer.

These conflicting statements raised serious doubts about the actual handling of the evidence. The Court emphasized that such inconsistencies cannot be dismissed as minor discrepancies. They involve the very corpus delicti, the body of the crime, and therefore demand unwavering accuracy. This is because, as the Court reiterated in Mallillin vs. People,

Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be established with moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authorized by law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Be that as it may, the mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.

Adding to the chain of custody issues, PO2 Bacud, who allegedly received the drugs from PO3 Bulosan and delivered them to the crime laboratory, was not presented as a witness. The Court also noted the prosecution’s failure to present PO3 Padayao, the officer who had custody of the seized drugs after examination by the forensic chemist, Police Inspector Amiely Ann Navarro. Consequently, without PO3 Padayao’s testimony, the Court was unable to determine whether the drugs seized from Wisco were the same as those presented in court. All these gaps in the chain of custody led the Court to reverse the earlier convictions and acquit Wisco.

Because the chain of custody was broken, the Court granted the appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized the crucial role the chain of custody plays in drug cases. It serves as a method of authenticating evidence, ensuring that the items presented in court are indeed the same ones seized from the accused. Without a clear and unbroken chain, doubts arise about the integrity of the evidence, which can be fatal to the prosecution’s case. The court referenced People vs. Macmac Bangcola y Maki, reiterating that,

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

In conclusion, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of meticulous adherence to procedural rules in drug-related cases. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the necessity of establishing each link in the chain of custody. Failure to do so can lead to reasonable doubt and the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the circumstances surrounding their arrest.

FAQs

This case underscores the importance of meticulous evidence handling in drug cases. Law enforcement must ensure that all procedural requirements are strictly followed. The integrity of the chain of custody is not merely a technicality but a fundamental aspect of due process, safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring the reliability of evidence presented in court.

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. NOMER WISCO Y FAILANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 237977, August 19, 2019