TL;DR

The Supreme Court acquitted Mario Nisperos y Padilla of illegal drug sale due to a critical flaw in the chain of custody. The court emphasized that in buy-bust operations, mandatory witnesses (DOJ representative, elected official, media) must be present “at or near” the arrest site to ensure immediate inventory and marking of seized drugs. Because the DOJ representative arrived late, causing a 30-minute delay in inventory, and the marking was not done immediately upon seizure, the integrity of the evidence was compromised, leading to reasonable doubt and acquittal. This ruling reinforces the strict application of chain of custody rules to protect against evidence tampering and ensure fair trials in drug cases.

Broken Chain, Broken Case: When Delayed Inventory Undermines Drug Convictions

Can a drug conviction stand when the procedural safeguards designed to protect evidence integrity are not strictly followed? This question lies at the heart of Mario Nisperos y Padilla v. People of the Philippines, a case where the Supreme Court meticulously examined the chain of custody rule in drug cases. The case underscores the critical importance of adhering to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, which outlines the procedures for handling seized dangerous drugs to maintain their evidentiary value and prevent tampering.

The prosecution presented evidence that Mario Nisperos was caught in a buy-bust operation selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). However, critical procedural lapses occurred during the operation. While a Barangay Captain was present at the scene, the Department of Justice (DOJ) representative arrived approximately 30 minutes after the arrest. Crucially, the seized drugs were not marked immediately upon confiscation but only later during the inventory, which was delayed due to the DOJ representative’s late arrival. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) initially upheld Nisperos’s conviction, but the Supreme Court ultimately reversed these decisions.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the interpretation and application of the chain of custody rule, particularly the requirement for mandatory witnesses and immediate inventory and marking. The Court reiterated that in buy-bust operations, the presence of insulating witnesses—an elected public official and representatives from the DOJ and media (or National Prosecution Service and media post-RA 10640 amendment)—is not merely a formality. Their presence is crucial to ensure transparency and prevent evidence tampering from the moment of seizure. The Court emphasized that these witnesses must be present “at or near” the place of apprehension, readily available to witness the inventory immediately following the seizure.

In Nisperos’s case, the delay in the DOJ representative’s arrival and the subsequent delay in conducting the inventory were deemed unjustifiable deviations from the chain of custody rule. The Court highlighted that the buy-bust team should have ensured all required witnesses were readily available, especially since the inventory was conducted at the place of seizure itself, not requiring transfer to a police station. The Court cited previous rulings, including People v. Supat and People v. Tomawis, which stress the necessity of witness presence at the time of seizure and confiscation to eliminate doubts about the drug’s source, identity, and integrity. The ruling clarifies that while witnesses need not be present during the actual arrest, they must be readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of marking, emphasizing it as the first critical step in the chain of custody. Citing People v. Sanchez, the Court reiterated that marking must be done immediately upon confiscation and in the presence of the apprehended violator. In this case, the marking was belated, done only during the delayed inventory, without any justifiable reason provided by the prosecution. This failure to establish the first link in the chain of custody was deemed fatal to the prosecution’s case.

The Court underscored that administrative rules and regulations, such as Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) Regulation No. 1 and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Guidelines, which require immediate marking, have the force and effect of law. Non-compliance with these rules, without justifiable grounds, compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted Nisperos, finding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The unjustified delay in inventory and marking, coupled with the absence of readily available mandatory witnesses, created reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the corpus delicti—the seized drugs. The Court reiterated the guidelines for law enforcement, emphasizing the need for immediate marking at the place of confiscation, and immediate inventory and photography after seizure, in the presence of the accused and mandatory witnesses. The ruling serves as a strong reminder of the stringent procedural requirements in drug cases and the judiciary’s commitment to upholding these safeguards to ensure fair trials and prevent wrongful convictions.

FAQs

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: Padilla v. People, G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022