In People v. Doctolero, Jr., the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the witness requirements under Republic Act (RA) 9165, as amended by RA 10640, emphasizing the necessity of having an elected public official and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media present during the inventory and photography of seized drugs. The Court found that the absence of a representative from the NPS or the media, without justifiable explanation or proof of genuine efforts to secure their presence, compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. This ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect against potential police abuse and ensure fair trials.

Missing Witnesses, Mistrial Risk: How Drug Case Procedures Protect Your Rights

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Doctolero, Jr. revolves around the crucial issue of compliance with the chain of custody rule in drug-related offenses, specifically focusing on the mandatory presence of certain witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized items. Accused-appellant Alfredo Doctolero, Jr. was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 for allegedly selling 0.16 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to an undercover police officer in a buy-bust operation. Following his arrest, an inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted, but only in the presence of an elected public official, Barangay Chairman Mary Jane Dela Rosa, and Barangay Ex-O Rolando Abadam, without any representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service (NPS). This procedural lapse became the central point of contention in the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the interpretation and application of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, which outlines the chain of custody requirements in drug cases. This provision mandates that immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses. Depending on whether the seizure occurred before or after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, the required witnesses are:

Time of Seizure	Required Witnesses
Before RA 10640 Amendment	A representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.
After RA 10640 Amendment	An elected public official and a representative of the NPS OR the media.

The purpose of requiring the presence of these witnesses is to safeguard the chain of custody and eliminate any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. The Court emphasized that compliance with the chain of custody procedure is generally regarded as a matter of substantive law, not merely a procedural technicality. This is because the law has been crafted as a safety precaution to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment.

However, the Court also recognized that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. In such cases, the failure to strictly comply with the procedure would not automatically render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. This is based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640.

Building on this principle, the Court has consistently held that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses. Furthermore, the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. As the Court underscored in People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637 (2010):

The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

With regard to the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted only if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure their presence, although they eventually failed to appear. The earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, but the primary objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.

In the case at bar, the arrest of accused-appellant occurred after the effectivity of RA 10640, the amendatory law of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Thus, the witnesses required in this case were an elected public official and a representative of the NPS OR the media. While the inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted in the presence of elected public officials, Barangay Chairman Dela Rosa and Barangay Ex-O Abadam, the records lacked any evidence showing that a representative of the NPS or the media was also present.

Regrettably, the prosecution failed to offer any explanation for their absence or provide any testimony to prove that there were genuine and earnest efforts exerted to secure their presence, as required by jurisprudence. In fact, there was not even an attempt to contact these witnesses, especially given the fact that the police officers received the confidential information from their asset on October 2, 2015, and the buy-bust operation was put into action in the early morning of October 3, 2015. This gave the police officers sufficient time to contact any member of the NPS or the media.

The RTC took judicial notice of the fact that the Office of the City Prosecutor of Marikina City does not have a night-shift public prosecutor who could be invited to witness the inventory and photography in this case. However, the Court emphasized that the police officers had ample time to contact them during the daytime of October 2, 2015. Moreover, RA 10640 requires the presence of an elected public official and a representative of the NPS OR the media; thus, the police officers even had the option of choosing which among these witnesses would be more convenient for them to find.

As such, the Supreme Court held that the police officers cannot mask their non-compliance by stating that they were not able to contact any of the required witnesses when the same was made only at such an ungodly hour rather than well beforehand, knowing that the buy-bust operation was planned to be conducted at that time. This failure on the part of the prosecution was not justified, thereby rendering the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items to be highly compromised, consequently warranting accused-appellant’s acquittal. As a final word, the Court reiterated its pronouncement in People v. Miranda reminding prosecutors that:

[Since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence’s integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further review.

Thus, the Supreme Court GRANTED the appeal, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Alfredo Doctolero, Jr. of the crime charged.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the failure to comply with the witness requirements during the inventory and photography of seized drugs, as mandated by RA 9165 (as amended by RA 10640), warranted the acquittal of the accused.
What are the witness requirements under RA 9165, as amended?	After the amendment by RA 10640, the required witnesses are an elected public official and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) OR the media. The original law required a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.
Why are these witnesses required?	The presence of these witnesses is to safeguard the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence, ensuring transparency and integrity in drug-related cases.
What happens if the police fail to comply with the witness requirements?	Failure to comply does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the prosecution can prove a justifiable reason for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. However, the prosecution must provide a valid explanation for the absence of the required witnesses.
What is considered a justifiable reason for non-compliance?	A justifiable reason requires proof of genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, though they eventually failed to appear. Mere statements of unavailability without actual attempts to contact them are insufficient.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Court acquitted the accused, Alfredo Doctolero, Jr., because the prosecution failed to justify the absence of a representative from the NPS or the media during the inventory and photography of the seized drugs, thereby compromising the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.
How does this ruling affect future drug cases?	This ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to the witness requirements in drug cases and serves as a reminder to law enforcement to make genuine efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized items.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule refers to the process of documenting the handling of evidence to ensure that it has not been tampered with. Each person who handles the evidence must sign and date the record, showing a continuous link.

This case highlights the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect individual rights and ensure fair trials. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the need for law enforcement to diligently comply with the witness requirements outlined in RA 9165, as amended, and to provide justifiable reasons for any deviations from the prescribed procedures. By prioritizing transparency and accountability, the justice system can better protect against potential police abuse and maintain public trust.

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. Doctolero, Jr., G.R. No. 243940, August 20, 2019