In a ruling that underscores the critical importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases, the Supreme Court acquitted Edwin Fajardo and Reynaldo Coralde of illegal possession of shabu due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized evidence. This decision highlights the stringent requirements the Philippine legal system imposes on law enforcement to ensure the integrity and identity of drug evidence, safeguarding individuals from wrongful convictions based on potentially compromised evidence. The acquittal emphasizes that without a clear and documented chain of custody, the prosecution cannot prove the corpus delicti, thus warranting an acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

When Police Procedure Falters: Questioning the Integrity of Drug Evidence

The case of Edwin Fajardo and Reynaldo Coralde v. People of the Philippines arose from an incident on December 21, 2002, in Quezon City. Acting on a tip, police officers raided a house allegedly used for a pot session and arrested Fajardo and Coralde, charging them with violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution presented testimonies from police officers who claimed to have witnessed the petitioners in possession of drug paraphernalia and shabu. However, significant inconsistencies and gaps in the handling of the evidence raised serious questions about the integrity of the prosecution’s case. The central legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the apparent breaches in the chain of custody of the alleged illegal drugs.

In the Philippine legal system, establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in drug cases hinges significantly on demonstrating an unbroken **chain of custody**. This principle ensures that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence seized from the accused, thereby preserving its integrity and evidentiary value. The Supreme Court, in this case, reiterated that the chain of custody rule is paramount in narcotics cases, as the narcotic substance itself constitutes the **corpus delicti** of the offense. The Court emphasized that:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to adequately establish the first crucial link in the chain of custody. The testimonies of the arresting officers were vague and inconsistent, particularly regarding the seizure of the plastic sachets allegedly containing shabu. One officer even mistakenly identified one of the accused, casting doubt on the credibility of his testimony. The Chemistry Report further complicated matters, as it showed negative results for the presence of dangerous drugs in the glass pipe and aluminum foil, which the officers claimed were used by the petitioners. These inconsistencies raised serious questions about whether the seized items were indeed connected to the accused.

Moreover, the marking of the seized items, a critical step in preserving the chain of custody, was not done at the scene of the crime in the presence of the accused. Instead, it was allegedly done by an unidentified investigator at the crime laboratory, further compromising the integrity of the evidence. This failure to adhere to proper procedure raised doubts about whether the items tested were the same ones seized from the petitioners. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the marking of seized items should be done immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually offered in evidence.

The prosecution also faltered in establishing the subsequent links in the chain of custody. The records lacked crucial details regarding the custody and handling of the shabu during and after the police investigation. It was unclear who received the seized items at the police station, how they were stored, and how they were transported to the crime laboratory. The absence of a clear and documented transfer of custody raised concerns about the potential for tampering or contamination of the evidence. The Court noted that:

In the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, the police officers stated “that all the recovered evidence were confiscated and properly handled and transported to this Station for safekeeping” without stating the particulars.

This lack of specific information further weakened the prosecution’s case.

Given these significant discrepancies and gaps in the chain of custody, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the **corpus delicti** beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties does not apply when there are contradicting details that raise doubts about the regularity of the police operation. In this case, the numerous procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the handling of the evidence undermined the presumption of regularity and warranted an acquittal. While the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses suggested possession of drug paraphernalia, the petitioners were charged with possession of illegal drugs under Section 11 of R.A. 9165, which requires proof of possession of specific dangerous drugs, such as shabu, none of which were convincingly proven to have been in the possession of the petitioners.

The Court stated:

None of the dangerous drugs enumerated above and more specifically, shabu, were convincingly proven to have been in possession of petitioners. On the other hand, possession of drug paraphernalia is dealt with in Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Edwin Fajardo and Reynaldo Coralde beyond a reasonable doubt for illegal possession of shabu, considering the lapses in the chain of custody of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of possession, from the moment the evidence is seized until it is presented in court, to ensure its integrity and identity. This includes documenting every person who handled the evidence, where it was stored, and what happened to it.
Why is the chain of custody rule important in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule is crucial because the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Any break in the chain can cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to a wrongful conviction.
What were the major lapses in the chain of custody in this case?	The major lapses included inconsistent testimonies from the arresting officers, failure to mark the seized items at the scene of the crime, lack of documentation regarding the handling and storage of the evidence, and conflicting results from the Chemistry Report.
What is the significance of the corpus delicti in a criminal case?	The corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, or the actual commission of the offense. In drug cases, the corpus delicti is the illegal drug itself, and its existence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
What is the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties?	The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes law enforcement officers have performed their duties properly. However, this presumption can be overturned if there is evidence of irregularities or procedural lapses.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted Edwin Fajardo and Reynaldo Coralde based on reasonable doubt, due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
What is the difference between possession of illegal drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia under Philippine law?	Possession of illegal drugs is a more serious offense under Section 11 of R.A. 9165, carrying a heavier penalty. Possession of drug paraphernalia, on the other hand, is a separate offense under Section 12 of R.A. 9165, with a lighter penalty.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in drug-related cases. The integrity of the justice system relies on ensuring that evidence is handled properly and that the rights of the accused are protected. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the high burden of proof required in criminal cases and the necessity of establishing an unbroken chain of custody to secure a conviction.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.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: EDWIN FAJARDO AND REYNALDO CORALDE, PETITIONERS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 185460, July 25, 2012