People vs. Ceralde

Non-compliance with the witness-presence requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, cannot be excused by a bare assertion that the buy-bust operation was "confidential" or that officers were "running out of time," absent any showing that the apprehending team attempted to secure the required witnesses; unjustified non-compliance compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs and warrants acquittal.

John Paul Ceralde y Ramos was the target of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers from Lingayen, Pangasinan, on July 23, 2011. The operation was premised on verified reports of his involvement in the sale of illegal drugs. Ceralde was charged under two Informations with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, respectively penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case required the Court to assess whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items pursuant to Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.

At around one o'clock in the morning of July 23, 2011, a buy-bust team composed of SPO1 Jolly Yanes, a certain SPO1 Santos, PO3 Marday Delos Santos, and one PO2 Dizon proceeded to Artacho St., Brgy. Poblacion, Lingayen, Pangasinan, to conduct an entrapment operation targeting John Paul Ceralde y Ramos. Shortly after the team arrived, Ceralde appeared and handed three plastic sachets of suspected marijuana leaves to SPO1 Yanes, who was acting as poseur-buyer, in exchange for marked money worth ₱200.00. SPO1 Yanes then raised his right hand to signal the rest of the team that the transaction was completed, and Ceralde was apprehended.

PO3 Delos Santos conducted a body search on Ceralde and discovered another plastic sachet of marijuana in his pants. He also secured the three sachets earlier handed to SPO1 Yanes and instructed Yanes to "go ahead." PO3 Delos Santos immediately marked all four plastic sachets at the place of arrest and in Ceralde's presence, then brought Ceralde together with the marked money and confiscated sachets to the police station for further investigation and documentation.

At the station, PO3 Pedro Vinluan, the duty investigator, received the confiscated sachets from PO3 Delos Santos and prepared a request for laboratory examination. At around noon of the same day, PO3 Delos Santos delivered the request and the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Urdaneta City, where Police Chief Inspector and Forensic Chemist Emelda B. Roderos tested them positive for marijuana. The seized drugs were then submitted to Records and Evidence Custodian Mercedita Velasco for safekeeping until their presentation in court. Notably, the physical inventory and photography of the seized items were not conducted in the presence of any elected public official or representatives from the DOJ or the media.

For his part, Ceralde denied the charges but opted not to present any evidence during trial, invoking his constitutional right of presumption of innocence, and moved to submit the case for decision. The RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, a ruling subsequently affirmed by the CA.

• Chain of Custody Compliance: Whether the CA correctly upheld Ceralde's conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs despite the apprehending team's non-compliance with the witness-presence requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.

• Chain of Custody Compliance: No. The prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the absence of the required witnesses from the media, the DOJ, and any elected public official during the inventory and photography of the seized items, thereby compromising the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs and warranting acquittal.

• Chain of Custody Compliance: In prosecutions for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, requires that the apprehending team conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or his representative, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. While strict compliance may not always be possible under varied field conditions, the IRR's saving clause excuses non-compliance only if the prosecution proves (a) a justifiable ground for non-compliance and (b) that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. Here, the seized items were marked immediately upon confiscation in Ceralde's presence, but the inventory and photography were not conducted before any elected public official or representatives from the DOJ or the media. PO3 Delos Santos justified the absence by claiming the buy-bust was a "confidential matter" and that officers were "running out of time to inform" the required witnesses. This justification was insufficient: the law mandates the presence of these witnesses precisely to prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence, and a claim of confidentiality cannot override that mandate. Moreover, there was no evidence that the police officers even attempted to contact the required witnesses, notwithstanding that buy-bust operations are usually planned ahead of time, nor did they offer any other explanation such as threats to safety or time and distance constraints. Because the prosecution failed to prove justifiable grounds for non-compliance, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised, and Ceralde's acquittal was warranted on reasonable doubt.

• Chain of Custody Rule (Section 21, RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640) — The apprehending team having initial custody of seized dangerous drugs must, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, who shall sign the inventory copies and receive a copy thereof. The inventory and photography shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served, or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in case of warrantless seizures. Non-compliance under justifiable grounds shall not render the seizure void provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this case, the Court held that the saving clause did not apply because the prosecution failed to prove justifiable grounds for the absence of the required witnesses.

• Saving Clause Requirements — For the saving clause under Section 21(a) of the IRR of RA 9165 to apply, the prosecution must satisfactorily prove two things: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance with the witness-presence requirement; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The justifiable ground must be proven as a fact; the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. In this case, the officers' claim of confidentiality and lack of time did not constitute a proven justifiable ground, as there was no showing they even attempted to contact the required witnesses.

• "the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved." — This passage articulates the two-part test for invoking the saving clause when the chain of custody requirements are not strictly followed.

• "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." — This formulation, drawn from People vs. De Guzman, establishes that the burden rests squarely on the prosecution to prove the existence and validity of justifying circumstances for non-compliance with Section 21.

• "Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty." — This passage, quoted from Bulauitan vs. People, encapsulates the Court's closing admonition that the campaign against drugs cannot override constitutional protections, and is frequently cited in acquittals based on procedural lapses by law enforcement.

• People vs. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749 (2014) — Cited for the proposition that the absence of the insulating presence of representatives from the media, the DOJ, or any elected public official during seizure and marking of drugs negates the integrity and credibility of the seizure and adversely affects the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.

• People vs. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51 (2010) — Cited for the rule that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and show that the integrity and value of the seized evidence were nonetheless preserved.

• People vs. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637 (2010) — Cited for the principle that the justifiable ground for non-compliance with Section 21 must be proven as a fact, as the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

• People vs. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) — Cited for the recognition that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible.

• Bulauitan vs. People, G.R. No. 218891, Sept. 19, 2016 — Cited in the closing admonition for the principle that the government's campaign against drug addiction cannot override the constitutional protections afforded to every individual.

• Section 21, Article II, RA 9165 (as amended by RA 10640) — Requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. Provides that non-compliance under justifiable grounds shall not render the seizure void if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court applied this provision to find that the absence of required witnesses was unjustified, compromising the chain of custody.

• Section 21(a), Article II, IRR of RA 9165 — Provides that the inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in cases of warrantless seizure, and contains the saving clause excusing non-compliance under justifiable grounds so long as integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. The Court relied on this provision to articulate the two-part test for invoking the saving clause.

• Sections 5 and 11, Article II, RA 9165 — Define and penalize illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, respectively. The Court identified the elements the prosecution must prove for each charge but did not reach the merits of whether those elements were satisfied, as the chain of custody defect was dispositive.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Caguioa, JJ., concurred.