In People v. Esrafel Dayon, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere strictly to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. This ruling emphasizes that law enforcement must ensure the presence of mandatory witnesses during the seizure and inventory of illegal drugs. The absence of these witnesses, without justifiable reasons, casts doubt on the integrity of the evidence and can lead to acquittal, highlighting the importance of protecting individual rights amidst the campaign against dangerous drugs.

When Missing Witnesses Undermine Drug Case Integrity: A Matter of Reasonable Doubt

The case revolves around Esrafel Dayon, accused of selling 0.040 grams of shabu during a buy-bust operation. Dayon was subsequently convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The core legal question arises from alleged lapses in the handling of evidence, specifically whether the police followed the strict chain of custody requirements stipulated in Republic Act (RA) 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).

To secure a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish key elements beyond reasonable doubt. These include the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, the consideration exchanged, and the actual delivery and payment. Central to this process is the presentation of the seized drugs as concrete evidence, acting as the corpus delicti of the crime. Therefore, it is crucial that the prosecution demonstrates, unequivocally, that the drugs presented in court are the very same ones seized during the buy-bust operation.

The concept of the chain of custody, as mandated by RA 9165, plays a pivotal role in ensuring the integrity of drug-related evidence. This process meticulously tracks the custody and handling of seized drugs from the moment of confiscation to their presentation in court. The aim is to eliminate any reasonable doubt about the identity and integrity of the evidence. By strictly adhering to these procedures, the risk of tampering, substitution, or contamination is minimized, bolstering the reliability of the evidence presented.

Section 21 of RA 9165, along with its IRR, requires specific steps immediately following the seizure of drugs: marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized items. These actions must occur in the presence of the accused (or their representative), as well as certain mandatory witnesses. Before the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, these witnesses included a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), along with any elected public official. After the amendment, the requirement changed to an elected public official AND a representative from the National Prosecution Service OR the media. The primary purpose of these witness requirements is to ensure transparency and prevent any suspicion of evidence switching, planting, or contamination.

In this particular case, the crime was allegedly committed on August 6, 2013, prior to the effectivity of RA 10640. Therefore, the original witness requirements under RA 9165 applied. These stipulations required the presence of a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and an elected public official during the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items. However, during the trial, it was revealed that only a media representative was present, thereby failing to meet the stringent requirements set forth by the law.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provide a saving clause under Section 21(a), acknowledging that strict compliance may not always be possible. This proviso states that non-compliance with the witness requirements is permissible under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. However, for this saving mechanism to apply, the prosecution must explicitly acknowledge the procedural lapses and provide a credible justification for them. Absent such justification, serious doubts arise regarding the identity and evidentiary value of the drugs presented as evidence.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the absence of the required witnesses does not automatically render the confiscated items inadmissible. Nevertheless, the prosecution bears the burden of providing a justifiable reason for such absence or demonstrating that genuine and sufficient efforts were made to secure the presence of the required witnesses. Mere statements of unavailability, without actual, serious attempts to contact the witnesses, are insufficient. The police officers must articulate the reasons for non-compliance and convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedures. They must also demonstrate that, under the circumstances, their actions were reasonable.

In People v. Dayon, the arresting team failed to provide a satisfactory justification for their procedural lapses. The prosecution witnesses did not offer any acknowledgment or explanation for the absence of a DOJ representative and an elected public official. Moreover, there was no evidence of any genuine effort by the arresting team to contact these required witnesses. While the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension mentioned failed attempts to summon barangay officials due to fear of reprisal, it did not address the absence of the DOJ representative, nor did it adequately demonstrate earnest efforts to secure their presence. The Court deemed this explanation insufficient, highlighting that the justifiable grounds for non-compliance must be affirmatively proven, not presumed.

The rationale behind requiring the presence of specific witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs is to ensure transparency and prevent any potential for abuse. These witnesses serve as safeguards, designed to prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. Their presence provides an additional layer of assurance that the integrity of the evidence remains intact throughout the process.

In the absence of a DOJ representative and an elected public official, and without any credible justification for their absence, the Supreme Court found that the integrity and credibility of the seized shabu were compromised. The prosecution’s failure to acknowledge and justify these procedural lapses cast a shadow of doubt on the corpus delicti, leading to the accused’s acquittal. While the Court acknowledged the government’s commitment to combating illegal drugs, it underscored that this effort must not come at the expense of due process and adherence to established legal procedures.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. Strict compliance with these safeguards protects the rights of the accused and ensures the integrity of the evidence. This ruling reinforces the principle that vigilance in eradicating illegal drugs must not override the fundamental rights of individuals and the rule of law. The Court acquitted Esrafel Dayon on the grounds of reasonable doubt, underscoring the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, particularly regarding the presence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the evidence as required by RA 9165.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the documented process of tracking seized evidence, ensuring its integrity from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. This includes documenting each person who handled the evidence, the dates and times it was handled, and the security measures taken to prevent tampering.
Who are the mandatory witnesses required under RA 9165?	Before RA 10640, mandatory witnesses included a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. After RA 10640, the requirement changed to an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media.
What happens if the mandatory witnesses are not present?	If the mandatory witnesses are not present, the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for their absence and demonstrate that earnest efforts were made to secure their presence. Without a valid justification, the integrity of the evidence may be compromised.
What is the ‘saving clause’ in the IRR of RA 9165?	The ‘saving clause’ allows for non-compliance with witness requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must acknowledge the lapse and explain why compliance was not possible.
Why is the presence of mandatory witnesses important?	The presence of mandatory witnesses ensures transparency and prevents any suspicion of evidence switching, planting, or contamination. It provides an additional layer of assurance that the integrity of the evidence remains intact.
What was the outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Esrafel Dayon due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the chain of custody rule, specifically the absence of mandatory witnesses without a justifiable reason, thus creating reasonable doubt.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases and emphasizes the need to protect the rights of the accused, even while combating illegal drugs.
What is the corpus delicti in drug cases?	The corpus delicti in drug cases refers to the actual illegal drugs seized, which serve as the primary evidence of the crime. The prosecution must prove the identity and integrity of this evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

This case serves as a reminder that while the fight against illegal drugs is a crucial endeavor, it must not compromise the fundamental rights of individuals. Law enforcement agencies must diligently adhere to the procedural safeguards established by law to ensure the integrity of evidence and uphold the principles of due process. By prioritizing both effective crime prevention and respect for individual liberties, the justice system can maintain its credibility and fairness.

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. ESRAFEL DAYON Y MALI @ “BONG”, G.R. No. 229669, November 27, 2019