RA 9165 - COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; Failure of the Prosecution to show observance of the procedural rules does not necessarily lead to the acquittal of the accused save when there is gross disregard of the prescribed safeguards.

In People v. Secreto, G.R. No. 198115, 27 February 2013, the Supreme Court explained that, as a general rule, non-compliance with the procedures laid down in Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, will not automatically or necessarily lead to the acquittal of the accused. In such cases, the prosecution only needs to prove that, despite the non-observance of procedures laid down in the implementing rules of RA 9165, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nonetheless preserved.

This is not the case, however, when there is a gross disregard of the prescribed procedural safeguards under law, which, as in the case of Secreto, leads to serious doubt as to the identity of the seized items presented in court, among others. In such cases, the Supreme Court will not hesitate to reverse a ruling of conviction, and the prosecution will not be allowed to rely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties to justify the omissions, since a gross disregard of the procedures laid down in the implementing rules effectively produces irregularity in the performance of official duties.

Acquittal of the Accused due to gross disregard of the procedural safeguards under the law

In Secreto, the Supreme Court ordered the acquittal of the accused due to the failure of the prosecution to prove that proper procedures were observed in the eventual marking and identification of the seized drugs. Specifically, the High Court noted the prosecution's failure to show how the arresting officer, SPO1 Pamor, was able to ensure the integrity of the drugs seized from the time it was entrusted to him at the place of confiscation until the team reached the police station, where he handed the drugs to another officer for marking. It also noted how the prosecution was unable to show to whom the confiscated articles were turned over and the manner they were preserved after the laboratory examination and until their final presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.

The above failures, according to the Supreme Court, raise serious doubt on the integrity and identity of the drugs presented as evidence in court. These failures likewise constitute a “gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards,” necessarily contradicting the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution were not enough to overturn the presumption of innocence of the accused and thus, ordered the reversal of the conviction of the court a quo.

Apart from the failure to observe the proper procedure for marking of the drugs confiscated, the Supreme Court also noted the failure of the buy-bust team to observe the rest of the procedures laid down in Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, to wit:

“It is also clear from the foregoing that aside from the markings that PO2 Lagmay alleged to have been made in the presence of PO1 Llanderal, who did not testify on this point, the buy-bust team did not observe the procedures laid down in Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165. They did not conduct a physical inventory and no photograph of the confiscated item was taken in the presence of the accused-appellant, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. In fact, the prosecution failed to present an accomplished Certificate of Inventory.”

Twin conditions needed to be proven to justify non-compliance with the procedural rules

            Notably, in Secreto, the Supreme Court likewise reiterated the twin conditions, which must be proved to justify non-compliance with the procedural rules in buy-bust operations and justify deviation from the said rules: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds, and (2) the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, thus:

            “In People v. Ancheta, where the sole procedural lapse revolved on the failure to conduct the required physical inventory and the taking of photograph in the presence of the representatives and public officials enumerated in the law despite the fact that the accused had been under surveillance and his name already on the drugs watch list, we ruled: 

‘. . . We further note that, before the saving clause provided under it can be invoked, Section 21(a) of the IRR requires the prosecution to prove the twin conditions of (a) existence of justifiable grounds and (b) preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. In this case, the arresting officers neither presented nor explained justifiable grounds for their failure to (1) make a physical inventory of the seized items; (2) take photographs of the items; and (3) establish that a representative each from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official had been contacted and were present during the marking of the items. These errors were exacerbated by the fact that the officers had ample time to comply with these legal requirements, as they had already monitored and put accused-appellants on their watch list. The totality of these circumstances has led us to conclude that the apprehending officers deliberately disregarded the legal procedure under R.A. 9165. "These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up" Accused-appellants would thereby be discharged from the crimes of which they were convicted.’”

            In the case of Secreto, both requisites were not proven. Hence, the lapses cannot be considered minor deviations from the procedures laid down by law, and the acquittal of the accused is warranted.