The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Melvin Dungo underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. The Court acquitted Dungo due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs and to adequately justify deviations from the mandatory procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165. This ruling reinforces the principle that the presumption of innocence prevails when the prosecution fails to provide clear and convincing evidence, thereby protecting individual rights against potential abuses in law enforcement.

Broken Chains: When Doubt Undermines a Drug Conviction

In People v. Melvin Dungo y Ocampo, the accused was apprehended following a buy-bust operation. The central legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved Dungo’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the integrity of the evidence presented against him. This case highlights the stringent requirements for establishing the chain of custody in drug cases, emphasizing the prosecution’s duty to account for each link in the chain and justify any deviations from the prescribed procedures.

The facts presented revealed that a confidential informant tipped off the police regarding Dungo’s alleged drug sales. A buy-bust operation ensued, leading to Dungo’s arrest. However, critical lapses in the handling of evidence emerged. According to the testimony, the marking of the seized items occurred immediately at the place of arrest, a critical first step in maintaining chain of custody. But the subsequent inventory and preparation of the Confiscation Report were only done at the police station. Moreover, photographs of the evidence were taken only at the police station, not at the site of the arrest. These deviations from protocol raised concerns about the integrity of the evidence.

Section 21 of RA 9165 mandates specific procedures for handling seized drugs, including immediate physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and an elected public official. As the Supreme Court has emphasized, strict compliance with these procedures is a matter of substantive law, not a mere technicality.

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs… for proper disposition in the following manner:

1) The apprehending 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… a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

In Dungo’s case, while barangay officials witnessed the marking of the evidence, crucial representatives from the DOJ and media were absent during the inventory at the police station. This absence, coupled with the failure to present the testimonies of the barangay kagawads who purportedly witnessed the inventory, raised serious doubts. The Court has consistently held that the presence of these witnesses is essential to ensure transparency and protect against potential abuses. In People v. Tampus, the Court reiterated the importance of the three-witness rule:

x x x the conduct of physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items in drugs cases must be in the presence of at least three (3) witnesses, particularly: (1) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and seized or his/her counsel, (2) an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The three witnesses, thereafter, should sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

Further compounding the issue, the person who delivered the specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory was not part of the buy-bust team and did not testify in court, creating a gap in the chain of custody. Moreover, the forensic chemist admitted a lack of knowledge regarding whether the examined specimen was indeed the one seized from Dungo. These cumulative lapses cast a shadow of doubt on the integrity of the evidence, undermining the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that an absolutely perfect chain of custody is not always attainable. However, the IRR of RA 9165 allows for partial or non-compliance only under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court emphasized that both elements – justifiable grounds and preservation of integrity – must concur, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving these. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide any justification for the deviations from the prescribed procedures, thus losing the benefit of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the presumption of regularity cannot substitute for clear and convincing evidence. Numerous missteps by law enforcement underscore irregularities in the police operation. When gaps exist in the chain of custody, they cannot be filled merely by invoking the presumption of regularity. As the Supreme Court stated in People v. Tomawis, “gaps in the chain of custody when not properly acknowledged and justified, ‘cannot be filled in by the mere invocation of the presumption of regularity.’”

The Court’s decision in People v. Dungo serves as a potent reminder of the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases, ensuring the protection of individual rights and preventing potential abuses. The case highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights. By requiring strict adherence to procedural rules, the Court protects individuals from potential abuses and ensures that convictions are based on solid evidence, not merely on presumptions or procedural shortcuts.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved Dungo’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal sale of drugs, considering the gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs and the lack of justification for deviations from the prescribed procedures.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of possession and handling of seized drugs, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court as evidence. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
What happens if there are deviations from Section 21?	Deviations are allowed only if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must prove these elements.
What is the presumption of regularity?	The presumption of regularity assumes that law enforcement officers perform their duties regularly. However, this presumption does not apply when there are clear indications of irregularities or deviations from the prescribed procedures.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Dungo because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and to justify the deviations from the mandatory procedures outlined in RA 9165.
Why was the presence of DOJ and media representatives important?	Their presence ensures transparency and protects against potential abuses, such as planting evidence. It also ensures that the inventory and handling of evidence are conducted fairly and impartially.
What is the effect of this ruling on future drug cases?	This ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases. It reminds law enforcement officers and the prosecution to meticulously follow the prescribed procedures and to justify any deviations, to ensure the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused.

In conclusion, People v. Melvin Dungo emphasizes the necessity of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect individual rights and ensure fair trials. The prosecution must not only acknowledge but also justify any deviations from the established procedures, reinforcing the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Failure to do so can result in the acquittal of the accused, as seen in this case.

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. Dungo, G.R. No. 229720, August 19, 2019