TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Rosario Bayot Mahinay for selling marijuana, despite procedural lapses in handling the evidence. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with the strict chain of custody rule doesn’t automatically acquit the accused if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are preserved. This means that even if the police fail to immediately inventory and photograph the seized items, the evidence can still be used to convict if the prosecution proves an unbroken chain of custody. Practically, this ruling reinforces that convictions in drug cases can stand even with minor procedural errors, as long as the core evidence remains reliable and untainted, ensuring accountability for drug offenses.

Bridge Over Troubled Drugs: Does a Flawed Buy-Bust Doom a Drug Conviction?

This case, People of the Philippines v. Rosario Bayot Mahinay, revolves around the arrest and conviction of Rosario Bayot Mahinay for selling marijuana. The key issue is whether the failure of the police officers to strictly comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, particularly regarding the inventory and photographing of seized drugs, should lead to Mahinay’s acquittal. The defense argued that these lapses broke the chain of custody, rendering the evidence inadmissible. However, the prosecution maintained that the integrity of the evidence was preserved despite these procedural imperfections.

The facts of the case are that on June 25, 2005, a buy-bust operation was conducted against Mahinay based on information that he was selling marijuana near Mananga Bridge in Talisay City, Cebu. A poseur buyer handed Mahinay a marked P100 bill in exchange for ten sticks of marijuana cigarettes. After the transaction, the police team arrested Mahinay and recovered the marked money. Although the police officers marked the seized items, they did not immediately conduct a physical inventory or take photographs at the scene of the arrest. The seized marijuana was later examined by a forensic chemist, who confirmed it to be marijuana. The trial court convicted Mahinay, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mahinay’s defense rested on the argument that the police failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs. This section requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. However, the law also provides an important caveat, as outlined in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165:

…(N)on-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.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court emphasized that the failure to strictly follow the procedures outlined in Section 21 does not automatically lead to the acquittal of the accused. The Court reiterated that what is crucial is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The chain of custody, which refers to the sequence of transferring the evidence from one person to another, must be substantially proven. The prosecution must establish the links in the chain, including the seizure and marking of the drugs, the turnover to the investigating officer, the delivery to the forensic chemist, and the submission to the court.

The Court of Appeals meticulously detailed the unbroken links in the chain of custody in this case. The seized marijuana sticks remained in the custody of SPO4 Vitualia from the moment they were turned over by the poseur buyer until he marked them. A letter-request for examination was executed and submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The forensic chemist, PSI Patriana, confirmed that the submitted articles tested positive for marijuana. This unbroken chain established the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, despite the initial procedural lapses. The Supreme Court thus held that the prosecution had sufficiently proven Mahinay’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court also addressed the defense’s argument that the non-presentation of the poseur buyer violated Mahinay’s right to confront the witnesses against him. The Court cited established jurisprudence that the presentation of an asset as a witness is not indispensable for a successful prosecution. The testimony of the poseur buyer is considered merely corroborative and cumulative. Moreover, there are valid reasons for not presenting informants in court, including the need to protect their identity and safety.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that procedural lapses in handling drug evidence do not automatically invalidate a conviction. The key is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are preserved throughout the chain of custody. This ruling balances the need to adhere to procedural safeguards with the imperative of prosecuting drug offenses effectively. The court held, that the failure to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of functions of the police officers further supports the decision to uphold the conviction.

FAQs

This case underscores the importance of meticulous adherence to chain of custody procedures in drug cases, while also acknowledging that minor deviations do not automatically invalidate a conviction. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement to diligently follow protocol and to the courts to assess the overall integrity of the evidence.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.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. Mahinay, G.R. No. 210656, December 07, 2016