In the case of Rowena Padas y Garcia v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court acquitted the petitioner due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere strictly to the chain of custody rule in drug cases, as required by Republic Act No. 9165. The Court emphasized that the absence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs, without justifiable explanation, casts doubt on the integrity of the evidence. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting the accused’s rights and ensuring the reliability of evidence in drug-related prosecutions. It also highlights the need for law enforcement to strictly comply with procedural safeguards to avoid wrongful convictions.

Unwitnessed Seizure: When Drug Evidence Fails the Chain of Custody Test

Rowena Padas y Garcia, also known as “Weng,” was apprehended on July 20, 2013, in Manila, for allegedly possessing three heat-sealed plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. The police officers who arrested her claimed they saw her displaying one of the sachets to an unidentified man. However, during the inventory and photographing of the seized evidence, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and an elected public official were not present. While a media representative was present, his participation was limited to signing the inventory after the marking of the evidence. This led to a critical examination of whether the chain of custody, a vital procedure in drug cases, was properly observed, raising questions about the reliability and integrity of the evidence presented against Garcia.

At the heart of this case is Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which mandates specific procedures for handling seized drugs to maintain the integrity of the evidence. This section requires that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure, conduct a physical inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and an elected public official. These individuals are required to sign the inventory and receive a copy. The law aims to prevent tampering, alteration, or substitution of the seized drugs, ensuring the reliability of the evidence presented in court.

The Court highlighted the significance of the chain of custody rule, stating that it is designed to safeguard against any doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs. The prosecution must establish with moral certainty that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance offered and identified in court. This requirement is crucial because illegal drugs are easily susceptible to tampering or substitution. The **chain of custody** ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs from the moment of confiscation to their presentation in court.

Chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each state, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until it is presented to the court.

In this case, the absence of a DOJ representative and an elected public official during the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs raised serious concerns about compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The prosecution did not provide any justification for their absence, nor did they acknowledge this procedural lapse. The Court noted that the media representative, Crisostomo, was not present when the petitioner was arrested and the seized evidence was marked. He merely signed the inventory afterward, making it unclear whether he witnessed the actual physical inventory of the seized drugs.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provide a saving clause for non-compliance with the chain of custody rule. This clause applies only if the prosecution recognizes the procedural lapses and provides justifiable grounds for them. Additionally, the prosecution must establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence have been preserved. In this instance, the prosecution failed to meet these requirements. They did not offer any explanation for the absence of the required witnesses, nor did they demonstrate that the integrity of the evidence was maintained despite the procedural lapses. The saving clause could not be invoked to excuse their non-compliance.

The Court emphasized that strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is necessary due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs. They are indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily subject to tampering or substitution. The presence of the four mandated witnesses safeguards the accused from any unlawful manipulation of the evidence against them. The Court also pointed out that merely calling the witnesses to witness the inventory, marking, and taking of photographs does not fulfill the law’s purpose. The witnesses must be present at the intended place of arrest to prevent the planting of drugs and ensure transparency in the process.

To further illustrate the importance of adhering to Section 21 of R.A. 9165, consider the contrasting perspectives in the following table:

Strict Compliance	Substantial Compliance
Ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs.	May lead to doubts about the authenticity and reliability of evidence.
Protects the accused from potential tampering or planting of evidence.	Increases the risk of wrongful convictions.
Maintains public trust in the criminal justice system.	Erodes public confidence in law enforcement and the courts.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that even if the prosecution proves the illegal sale of a dangerous drug, it must also prove the integrity of the corpus delicti. If the chain of custody is defective, the corpus delicti cannot be established, and the accused must be acquitted. In People v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 228893 (2018), the Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence. This case reinforces the principle that procedural lapses in handling drug evidence can be fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Regarding the petitioner’s claim of illegal arrest, the Court noted that it was raised too late. According to established jurisprudence, an accused is estopped from challenging the legality of their arrest if they fail to move for the quashing of the Information before arraignment. Any objection to the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before entering a plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Therefore, the petitioner’s argument regarding the illegality of her arrest could not be considered.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Rowena Padas y Garcia beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of the required witnesses during the inventory, marking, and taking of photographs of the seized drugs, coupled with the lack of justification for their absence, created serious uncertainty about the identity of the corpus delicti. As a result, the Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted the petitioner of the crime charged.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody of the seized drugs, considering the absence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the evidence. The Court focused on compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
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 confiscation to presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence.
Who are the mandatory witnesses required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	The mandatory witnesses are the accused or their representative, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.
What happens if the mandatory witnesses are not present during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs?	The absence of mandatory witnesses raises doubts about the integrity of the evidence. The prosecution must provide justifiable grounds for their absence and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
What is the saving clause under the IRR of R.A. No. 9165?	The saving clause allows for non-compliance with the chain of custody rule if the prosecution recognizes the procedural lapses, provides justifiable grounds, and establishes that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence were preserved.
Why is strict compliance with the chain of custody rule important in drug cases?	Strict compliance is crucial because illegal drugs are easily susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution. The chain of custody rule safeguards the accused from any unlawful manipulation of the evidence.
What is the corpus delicti in a drug case?	The corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, which includes the illegal drug itself. The prosecution must prove the integrity and identity of the drug to establish the corpus delicti.
What was the Court’s ruling on the petitioner’s claim of illegal arrest?	The Court ruled that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the legality of her arrest because she failed to move for the quashing of the Information before arraignment.
What was the final outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted Rowena Padas y Garcia due to the prosecution’s failure to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case reinforces the importance of strictly adhering to the procedural requirements of R.A. No. 9165 to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of the evidence presented in court. Law enforcement officers must ensure that the inventory and photographing of seized drugs are conducted in the presence of all mandatory witnesses, or provide justifiable reasons for their absence, to avoid potential challenges to the admissibility of evidence and to secure valid convictions.

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: ROWENA PADAS Y GARCIA @ “WENG” v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 244327, October 14, 2019