FACTS: On February 23, 2010, Mustafa was arrested in an alleged buy-bust operations in Campo Islam, Zamboanga City, by agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency – Region 9, based in Upper Calarian, same city.
Mustafa was taken to the PDEA-9 headquarters where the alleged illegal drugs (methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu) were inventoried and photographed. The Certificate of Inventory was signed by a representative from the media and from the Department of Justice. In the Joint Affidavit of the apprehending officers, they maintained that after apprehending the accused, they immediately brought him to their headquarters.
ISSUE: Is there sufficient grounds for the prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs?
RULING: None. From the facts of the case, the prosecution failed to prove the accused’ s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. Nr. 9165) and its implementing rules, it is mandatory that the documentation of the seized evidence must be done at the scene of the crime. It can only be excused if there is immediate danger to the arresting team at the scene of the crime.
In the case at bar, no such immediate danger can be deduced from the Joint Affidavit of Arrest executed by the arresting officers. Further, the law requires that the inventory and photographing must be in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official, who must all sign the Certificate of Inventory. In the present case, only the representatives from the media and the DOJ, signed the Certificate.
The Court stressed in People of the Philippines v. Vicente Sipin (GR 224290, 11 June 2018):
“The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules of evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is minuscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.”
Source: People of the Philippines v. Mustafa Sali, G.R. No. 236596; 29 January 2020
Bits & Pieces 