In drug-related cases, maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized substances is crucial. The Supreme Court has emphasized that failure to strictly adhere to procedures, especially regarding mandatory witnesses during inventory and photography, can lead to acquittal. This ruling underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in ensuring the integrity of evidence and protecting the rights of the accused.

When a Fiesta Crowd Obstructs Justice: Did Police Lapses Free a Suspect?

This case revolves around Albert Perez Flores, who was apprehended during a buy-bust operation and subsequently charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution’s case hinged on the evidence seized from Flores, primarily sachets of shabu. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized the procedures followed by the police in handling this evidence, focusing particularly on the chain of custody rule as mandated by Republic Act No. 9165, or the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.”

The law requires strict adherence to protocols for handling seized drugs. These protocols include immediate marking, inventory, and photography of the items, all in the presence of the accused and specific witnesses. Crucially, these witnesses must include representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), or after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The purpose of these requirements is to prevent tampering, substitution, or planting of evidence, ensuring the integrity of the corpus delicti – the body of the crime.

In Flores’s case, the police conducted the inventory and photography at the police station rather than the place of arrest, citing the presence of a large crowd due to a motocross contest. While the Court accepted this deviation, it found a critical flaw in the prosecution’s case: the absence of mandatory witnesses. The Certificate of Inventory was signed only by two elected public officials, and the poseur-buyer, PO2 Catubig, admitted that no representatives from the DOJ or the media were present during the inventory. His explanation for their absence was deemed insufficient by the Court.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the prosecution bears the burden of proving compliance with the chain of custody rule. As the Court stated in People v. Miranda:

[S]ince the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, then the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence’s integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further review.

This principle highlights the high standard of proof required from the prosecution in drug cases. The Court emphasized that the absence of the required witnesses must be justified with a reasonable explanation or proof of genuine efforts to secure their presence. Mere statements of unavailability are not enough. In this case, the explanation that it was “hard to contact” DOJ representatives, without any further details, was deemed a flimsy excuse. Similarly, the claim that the Chief of Police contacted a media representative who could not come was not substantiated with the Chief’s personal testimony.

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible due to varying field conditions. However, the prosecution can invoke the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640. This clause allows for non-compliance if the prosecution proves (a) a justifiable ground for non-compliance and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact; the Court cannot presume its existence. In Flores’s case, the prosecution failed to meet this burden.

Because the prosecution failed to justify the absence of the required witnesses, the Court concluded that there was an unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule. This deviation compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Flores’s appeal and acquitted him of the charges.

This case underscores the critical importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug cases. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement officers that strict compliance with the procedural requirements of RA 9165 is not merely a technicality but a matter of substantive law. Failure to comply can have significant consequences, including the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the evidence against them. The ruling also reinforces the prosecution’s duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody, regardless of whether the defense raises the issue. This duty ensures that the rights of the accused are protected and that justice is served.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the police complied with the chain of custody rule, particularly regarding the presence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory and photography of the seized drugs. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to justify the absence of these witnesses, compromising the integrity of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the documented process of tracking seized evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and authenticity of the evidence by documenting each transfer and handling of the item.
Who are the mandatory witnesses required during inventory and photography of seized drugs?	The law requires the presence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), or after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.
What happens if the police fail to comply with the chain of custody rule?	Failure to comply with the chain of custody rule can render the seized evidence inadmissible in court, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. However, there is a saving clause that allows for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.
What is the saving clause in the chain of custody rule?	The saving clause allows for non-compliance with the chain of custody rule if the prosecution can prove a justifiable ground for the non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What is the prosecution’s burden in justifying non-compliance with the chain of custody rule?	The prosecution must present a reasonable explanation for the absence of the mandatory witnesses or prove that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted to secure their presence. Mere statements of unavailability are not sufficient.
Why is the chain of custody rule so important in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule is crucial because it ensures the integrity and authenticity of the evidence, preventing tampering, substitution, or planting of evidence. This is particularly important in drug cases, where the penalties can be severe.
What was the final outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court granted Albert Perez Flores’s appeal and acquitted him of the charges due to the prosecution’s failure to justify the absence of the mandatory witnesses during the inventory and photography of the seized drugs.

This case serves as an important reminder of the strict requirements for handling evidence in drug cases. Law enforcement and prosecutors must ensure full compliance with chain of custody procedures, particularly the mandatory witness rule, to secure convictions and uphold justice.

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. ALBERT PEREZ FLORES, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019