In drug-related offenses, the integrity of evidence is paramount. The Supreme Court held that reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by arresting officers is unwarranted when the records reveal non-compliance with safeguards designed to preserve the chain of custody of contraband. This means that law enforcement must meticulously follow prescribed procedures to ensure the evidence presented in court is the same evidence seized from the accused, thereby upholding the accused’s constitutional rights.

Failing Safeguards: How a Drug Case Hinged on Evidence Integrity

The case of Leonardo P. Casona v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 179757, September 13, 2017) centered on whether the prosecution successfully proved Casona’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for illegal possession of shabu. The central issue revolved around the integrity of the evidence presented against him, particularly whether the chain of custody was properly maintained by the arresting officers. Casona was initially convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, acquitting Casona due to significant lapses in the handling of the seized drugs.

The Supreme Court emphasized that every conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. This standard necessitates moral certainty derived from evidence that convinces an unprejudiced mind. In Casona’s case, the Court found that this degree of proof was lacking, primarily due to the failure of the arresting officers to adhere to the mandatory safeguards outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. These safeguards are designed to protect against evidence tampering or substitution, ensuring the integrity of the drug evidence from seizure to presentation in court.

A critical aspect of drug-related offenses is establishing the corpus delicti, which in this context is the dangerous drug itself. The Court reiterated that the identity and integrity of the seized drug must be preserved and proven by the State. This requires accounting for each link in the chain of custody, from the moment of seizure until its presentation in court. According to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

In Casona’s case, the arresting officers failed to comply with these requirements. They did not conduct an immediate physical inventory or photograph the shabu in the presence of the required witnesses. Moreover, the prosecution did not provide any explanation for these lapses. PO1 Madlangbayan identified the shabu in court using markings “LCP-1” and “LCP-2” (petitioner’s initials), but there was no testimony about the specific circumstances of placing such markings, such as when and where the markings were made. The absence of an inventory signed by the accused or his representative, along with representatives from the media, DOJ, or an elected official, raised significant doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

The Court underscored that the requirement for marking the shabu at or nearest to the time of seizure is essential to guarantee the preservation of its identity as it moves through the chain of custody. The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) defined the chain of custody in DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, Section 1 (b) as:

“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition;

While the IRR of R.A. 9165 provides a saving clause for non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, the prosecution did not offer any justification for the officers’ failures. This failure to explain the non-compliance and to demonstrate the preservation of the evidence’s integrity led the Supreme Court to conclude that the evidence of the corpus delicti was doubtful. Consequently, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused prevailed.

The Court also addressed the lower courts’ reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the arresting officers. It clarified that this presumption should not be applied when there is concrete evidence of lapses in compliance with the mandatory safeguards. The presumption of regularity is merely an evidentiary tool and cannot outweigh the fundamental presumption of innocence enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The Court cited People v. Andaya (G.R. No. 183700, October 13, 2014) to reinforce that the lack of ill motive imputed to law enforcers should not automatically validate their actions, emphasizing the need for judicial scrutiny to protect citizens from false arrests and wrongful incriminations. Instead of relying on presumption, the court should protect the right of the accused and examine if the State presents proof beyond reasonable doubt.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for illegal possession of drugs, considering the alleged lapses in maintaining the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of custody and control of seized drugs, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court as evidence, ensuring its integrity and identity.
What safeguards are in place to ensure the integrity of drug evidence?	Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, media representatives, DOJ representatives, and elected public officials.
What happens if the police fail to follow these safeguards?	Failure to comply with these safeguards can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused, unless the prosecution can justify the non-compliance and prove the integrity of the evidence.
What is the presumption of regularity?	The presumption of regularity assumes that public officials perform their duties regularly and lawfully; however, this presumption cannot override the accused’s right to be presumed innocent.
Why is it important to have media and DOJ representatives present during the seizure?	The presence of media and DOJ representatives aims to ensure transparency and prevent any suspicion of tampering or planting of evidence by law enforcement officers.
What is the legal definition of corpus delicti in drug cases?	In drug cases, the corpus delicti refers to the actual dangerous drug itself, which must be proven to be the same substance seized from the accused.
What was the ultimate ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Leonardo P. Casona due to the prosecution’s failure to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily because of lapses in the chain of custody.

The Casona ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that law enforcement adheres to prescribed procedures in drug cases. The strict adherence to these procedures is not merely a technicality but a critical safeguard against potential abuse and wrongful convictions.

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: Leonardo P. Casona v. People, G.R. No. 179757, September 13, 2017