In drug cases, the prosecution must prove the integrity of the seized drugs beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to strictly adhere to the chain of custody requirements, as outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, can lead to an accused’s acquittal. This ruling reinforces the importance of meticulously documenting every step in handling drug evidence to prevent tampering or substitution and safeguard the rights of the accused.

Broken Links: How a Flawed Drug Case Led to Acquittal

In People of the Philippines vs. Dioscoro Comoso Turemutsa, the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of chain of custody in drug-related cases. The accused, Dioscoro Comoso, was charged with the illegal sale of marijuana. The central question was whether the prosecution successfully proved Comoso’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the alleged lapses in preserving the integrity of the seized drugs. This case highlights the stringent requirements for handling evidence in drug cases and the consequences of non-compliance.

The prosecution presented evidence that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on information that Comoso was selling illegal drugs. According to their witnesses, Comoso handed a plastic sachet containing marijuana to a poseur-buyer in exchange for marked money. Police officers then arrested Comoso, recovering the sachet and marked money. However, the defense argued that the chain of custody was broken, casting doubt on the integrity of the seized drugs. This doubt became a focal point of the Supreme Court’s analysis.

The concept of chain of custody is crucial in drug cases. It refers to the documented movement and custody of seized drugs, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. This ensures that the evidence presented is the same as that originally seized from the accused, preventing any tampering or substitution. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 outlines the specific procedures for handling seized drugs:

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:

The law requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media. Furthermore, the seized drugs must be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours for examination. Any deviation from these requirements must be justified, and the prosecution must demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

In this case, the Supreme Court found significant lapses in the chain of custody. The apprehending officer, PO2 Aquino, testified that he marked the plastic sachet with his initials and prepared an inventory. However, it was unclear whether the inventory was conducted in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses. More critically, the seized items were only received by the forensic chemist ten days after the buy-bust operation, a delay for which the prosecution offered no explanation. This delay raised serious doubts about whether the drugs tested were the same as those seized from Comoso.

The Supreme Court emphasized that each link in the chain of custody must be established, including the seizure and marking of the drug, the turnover to the investigating officer, the submission to the forensic chemist, and the presentation in court. The Court cited People v. Nandi, highlighting the importance of documenting each step:

[F]irst, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

Because the prosecution failed to adequately explain the significant delay in submitting the seized drugs to the forensic chemist and did not establish the presence of required witnesses during the inventory, the Court found that the chain of custody was broken. This failure created reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the evidence, leading to Comoso’s acquittal. The Court reiterated that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties does not apply when there are clear deviations from the prescribed procedures.

The Court also emphasized that the stringent requirements of the law are designed to ensure that courts can be certain that the illegal drug presented by the prosecution is the same drug seized from the accused. As highlighted in People v. Holgado, compliance with the chain of custody requirement ensures the integrity of confiscated drugs in four respects: the nature of the substance, the quantity, the relation to the incident, and the relation to the person alleged to be in possession. Failure to comply opens opportunities for planting, contamination, or tampering of evidence.

This case underscores the importance of meticulous adherence to the chain of custody requirements in drug cases. Law enforcement officers must ensure that every step in handling seized drugs is properly documented and witnessed, minimizing the possibility of tampering or substitution. The prosecution bears the burden of proving compliance with these requirements beyond a reasonable doubt. Failure to do so can result in the acquittal of the accused, regardless of other evidence presented.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to prioritize the integrity of evidence in drug cases. Strict compliance with the chain of custody rules is not merely a procedural formality, but a critical safeguard against wrongful convictions. This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the constitutional rights of the accused and ensuring that justice is served fairly and impartially.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved Dioscoro Comoso’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for violating drug laws, considering alleged lapses in preserving the integrity of the seized drugs. The Supreme Court focused on whether the chain of custody was properly maintained.
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. It ensures the integrity of the evidence and prevents tampering or substitution.
What are the key steps in the chain of custody?	The key steps include the seizure and marking of the drug, the turnover to the investigating officer, the submission to the forensic chemist, and the presentation in court. Each step must be properly documented and witnessed.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, it creates reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the evidence. This can lead to the acquittal of the accused, as the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What are the legal requirements for handling seized drugs?	Republic Act No. 9165 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media. The drugs must also be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory within 24 hours.
Why is it important to comply with chain of custody requirements?	Compliance ensures that the evidence presented in court is the same as that originally seized from the accused, preventing any tampering or substitution. It also protects the constitutional rights of the accused and ensures a fair trial.
What was the main flaw in the prosecution’s case?	The main flaw was the significant delay of ten days in submitting the seized drugs to the forensic chemist, without any justification provided by the prosecution. This raised doubts about whether the drugs tested were the same as those seized from Comoso.
What is the role of the presumption of regularity in drug cases?	The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties does not apply when there are clear deviations from the prescribed procedures for handling seized drugs. The prosecution must prove compliance with the chain of custody requirements.
What was the outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Dioscoro Comoso due to the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the chain of custody was broken, creating reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the evidence.

This case reaffirms the necessity for law enforcement and the prosecution to meticulously follow the chain of custody procedures in drug cases. The integrity of evidence is paramount, and any lapses can have significant consequences on the outcome of the case. By strictly adhering to these requirements, the justice system can ensure fairness and accuracy in drug-related prosecutions.

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: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DIOSCORO COMOSO TUREMUTSA, G.R. No. 227497, April 10, 2019