In Jesus Edangalino v. People, the Supreme Court acquitted the petitioner due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere strictly to the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The court emphasized that the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs must be preserved meticulously, and the absence of mandatory witnesses during inventory and photographing raises doubts about the chain of custody. This ruling underscores the importance of strict compliance with legal procedures in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of evidence.

Broken Chains: Can a Drug Conviction Stand Without Mandatory Witnesses?

The case revolves around Jesus Edangalino’s conviction for violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, for possessing 0.02 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The prosecution’s case rested on a buy-bust operation conducted by the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (DAID-SOTG). However, critical procedural lapses occurred during the post-seizure handling of the evidence, specifically regarding the mandatory presence of witnesses during inventory and photographing of the seized drugs. This raised serious questions about the integrity of the evidence presented against Edangalino, leading to a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court.

At the heart of this case lies the crucial issue of chain of custody, which is paramount in drug-related prosecutions. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, and its identity must be established beyond reasonable doubt. To ensure this, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) stipulate specific procedures for handling seized drugs. These include the immediate physical inventory and photographing of the drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.

The purpose of these requirements is to guarantee transparency and prevent tampering or substitution of evidence. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of these safeguards to protect against planting of evidence and frame-ups. As the Court stated in People of the Philippines v. Robert D. Duran, G.R. No. 233251, March 13, 2019, the presence of these persons will guarantee “against planting of evidence and frame-up, [i.e., they are] necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity.”

In Edangalino’s case, it was undisputed that no representatives from the media and the DOJ, nor an elected public official, were present during the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized item. PO1 Rey Lambino, the arresting officer, admitted this absence during cross-examination. This blatant non-compliance with Section 21 raised serious concerns about the integrity of the evidence and the fairness of the proceedings.

The prosecution argued that the failure to strictly comply with Section 21 should not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the drugs, citing the saving clause in the IRR which states that “non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.” However, the Supreme Court clarified that this saving clause applies only when the prosecution can prove both (a) a justifiable ground for non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide any justifiable explanation for the absence of the mandatory witnesses. PO1 Lambino’s testimony did not offer any plausible reason why the presence of these representatives was not secured. As the Court emphasized in People v. De Guzman y Danzil, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (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.”

The Supreme Court has previously recognized certain instances where the absence of the required witnesses may be justified. These include situations where media representatives are unavailable, police operatives lack time to alert the media due to the immediacy of the operation, or time constraints prevent compliance with all requisites. However, none of these justifications were presented or proven in Edangalino’s case. The prosecution’s failure to offer any valid reason for non-compliance created a significant gap in the chain of custody, casting doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.

The Court also rejected the lower courts’ reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. To reiterate, as the Court stated in People of the Philippines v. Dave Claudel y Lucas, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019, “Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent.” The lapses in procedure themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity, negating the presumption of regularity.

Due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 and its IRR, and the lack of any justifiable explanation for such non-compliance, the Supreme Court ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were compromised. Consequently, the Court acquitted Jesus Edangalino, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial.

This case underscores the crucial role of the chain of custody in drug prosecutions. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies of the importance of meticulously following the procedures outlined in R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR. Failure to comply with these requirements can lead to the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the evidence presented. The presence of the mandatory witnesses—representatives from the media, the DOJ, and an elected public official—is not merely a formality but a vital safeguard to ensure transparency, prevent abuse, and protect the integrity of the legal process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the failure of law enforcement to comply with the mandatory witness requirements during the seizure and inventory of drugs, as outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165, warranted the acquittal of the accused. The Court focused on whether the prosecution provided justifiable grounds for non-compliance and if the integrity of the seized items was properly preserved.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	Chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers and handling of evidence, specifically dangerous drugs, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence by documenting each step of possession and control.
Who are the mandatory witnesses required during the inventory of seized drugs?	The mandatory witnesses required during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs include the accused or their representative, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. Their presence aims to ensure transparency and prevent tampering with evidence.
What happens if the mandatory witnesses are not present during the inventory?	If the mandatory witnesses are not present during the inventory, the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for their absence. Failure to do so can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence and may lead to the acquittal of the accused.
What is the significance of Section 21 of R.A. 9165?	Section 21 of R.A. 9165 outlines the procedures for the custody and disposition of seized drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors, and essential chemicals. It aims to safeguard the integrity of the evidence and prevent abuse or tampering.
What is the role of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty?	The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty assumes that law enforcement officers acted according to legal procedures. However, this presumption cannot override the accused’s right to be presumed innocent, and it does not apply when there is evidence of irregularity in the performance of duty.
What is the impact of R.A. 10640 on Section 21 of R.A. 9165?	R.A. 10640 amended Section 21 of R.A. 9165, modifying the requirements for the presence of witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs. It now requires the presence of an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, instead of both a media and DOJ representative.
What constitutes a justifiable ground for non-compliance with Section 21?	Justifiable grounds for non-compliance with Section 21 may include situations where media representatives are unavailable, police operatives lack time to alert the media due to the immediacy of the operation, or time constraints prevent compliance with all requisites, as determined by the Court. These must be proven as facts.

The Edangalino case serves as a stern reminder of the importance of adhering to the strictures of R.A. 9165. When gaps emerge in the chain of custody due to the absence of mandatory witnesses without justifiable cause, the prosecution’s case falters. This outcome not only highlights the procedural requirements in drug-related cases but also reinforces the protection afforded to the accused under the law.

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: JESUS EDANGALINO Y DIONISIO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 235110, January 08, 2020