In People vs. Wisco, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in an illegal drug sale case. The Court emphasized the critical importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs, ensuring the integrity and identity of the evidence presented in court. This case highlights the strict standards to which law enforcement is held in drug-related prosecutions, reinforcing the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Failing the Chain: How a Buy-Bust Operation Unraveled in Court

This case began with a buy-bust operation conducted by the Pasuquin Municipal Police Station against Nomer Wisco, who was reported to be selling shabu. PO1 Rosal acted as the poseur-buyer, accompanied by a confidential informant. According to the prosecution, Wisco sold PO1 Rosal a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. Wisco was then apprehended, and another sachet was found on his person.

However, the Supreme Court found significant lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drugs, leading to Wisco’s acquittal. The chain of custody, as defined in Section 1 (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, refers to “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 that the evidence presented in court is the same as that seized from the accused.

In this case, the Court identified several breaks in the chain. First, during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, not all the required witnesses were present. Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. While Barangay Chairman Aguinaldo was present, he denied witnessing the marking and photographing of the drugs, and no representatives from the DOJ or media were present.

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance with Section 21 may not always be possible, citing the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which provides a saving clause for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, “as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.” However, the prosecution failed to provide any justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses, thus compromising the integrity of the evidence.

Second, discrepancies arose regarding the turnover of the seized drugs from PO1 Rosal to PO3 Bulosan. PO3 Bulosan’s testimony was inconsistent, and his name and signature were absent from the Chain of Custody Form as the immediate recipient. Third, the prosecution failed to present PO2 Bacud, who allegedly delivered the seized drugs to the crime laboratory, to testify on how he handled the drugs in his custody. Finally, PO3 Padayao, who had custody of the drugs after the forensic examination, also did not testify, further breaking the chain of custody.

The Court emphasized that the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense. In Mallillin vs. People, the Court stated:

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.

Because of the numerous gaps in the chain of custody, the Court found reasonable doubt as to the identity of the drugs allegedly seized from Wisco. As a result, the Court acquitted Wisco, reinforcing the principle that the prosecution must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. The decision underscores the importance of meticulously following the procedures outlined in R.A. No. 9165 to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

The ruling emphasizes that any failure to strictly adhere to these procedures can lead to the exclusion of critical evidence and the acquittal of the accused. This serves as a stark reminder to law enforcement agencies about the critical importance of meticulous documentation and adherence to protocol in handling evidence in drug-related cases. The case highlights the balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual liberties, ensuring that the rights of the accused are not sacrificed in the pursuit of justice.

This case serves as a clear illustration of how procedural lapses can undermine even the most seemingly straightforward drug cases. The Court’s decision reinforces the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and places the burden squarely on the prosecution to establish every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. By strictly enforcing the chain of custody requirements, the Court safeguards against potential tampering or substitution of evidence, ensuring the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, thereby proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs presented in court were the same as those seized from the accused.
Why was the accused acquitted?	The accused was acquitted because the Supreme Court found significant gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs, raising reasonable doubt as to their identity and integrity.
What is the chain of custody?	The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of custody and control of evidence, ensuring that it has not been tampered with or altered from the time of seizure to its presentation in court.
What witnesses are required during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs?	Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 requires the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official during the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs.
What happens if the required witnesses are not present?	The absence of the required witnesses does not automatically render the confiscated items inadmissible, but the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for their absence and show genuine efforts to secure their presence.
What was the significance of the conflicting testimonies of the police officers?	The conflicting testimonies of the police officers regarding the turnover of the seized drugs raised doubts about the integrity of the evidence and created a gap in the chain of custody.
Why was the testimony of PO2 Bacud important?	The testimony of PO2 Bacud was important because he allegedly delivered the seized drugs to the crime laboratory, and his testimony could have clarified how he handled the drugs in his custody.
What is the corpus delicti in drug cases?	In drug cases, the corpus delicti refers to the dangerous drug itself, and its existence must be established beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction to stand.
What is the effect of R.A. No. 10640 on Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	R.A. No. 10640 amended Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 to require the presence of “[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media” during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs. However, the original Section 21 applies to incidents that occurred before July 15, 2014, the date of effectivity of R.A. No. 10640.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Wisco serves as a critical reminder of the stringent requirements for proving guilt in drug-related cases. Law enforcement agencies must adhere meticulously to the chain of custody requirements to ensure the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused. This decision reinforces the importance of upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that convictions are based on solid, credible evidence.

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. Nomer Wisco y Failano, G.R. No. 237977, August 19, 2019