In drug-related cases, maintaining a strict chain of custody is paramount. The Supreme Court has consistently held that failure to adhere to this rule, especially regarding the handling of seized drugs, can lead to acquittal. This principle ensures that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence that was seized, preventing any tampering or substitution. The presence of mandatory witnesses during the seizure and inventory is crucial to guarantee transparency and accountability. Without a properly documented and unbroken chain of custody, the prosecution’s case weakens, and the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

Drug Busts and Broken Chains: When Evidence Integrity Falls Short

The case of People of the Philippines v. Ronaldo Salenga y Gonzales revolves around a buy-bust operation where Ronaldo Salenga, also known as “Barok,” was apprehended for allegedly selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The prosecution presented evidence suggesting that Salenga sold 0.04 grams of shabu to an undercover police officer and was found in possession of an additional 0.08 grams. Salenga, however, claimed that he was framed by the police officers. The central legal question is whether the prosecution sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, a requirement to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs presented in court. The Supreme Court ultimately found that the chain of custody was compromised, leading to Salenga’s acquittal.

The concept of the chain of custody is enshrined in Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This provision outlines the procedure for handling confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs. Specifically, it requires that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the drugs. This must be done in the presence of the accused, or their representative, and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as any elected public official. These witnesses are required to sign the inventory and receive a copy.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 further clarify that this inventory and photography should occur at the place where the search warrant is served, or, in the case of warrantless seizures, at the nearest police station or office, whichever is practicable. The purpose is to ensure transparency and prevent any opportunity for tampering with the evidence. Failure to comply with these requirements can be excused only under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

In People v. Salenga, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule. The Court noted that the inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted at the police station, not at the place of arrest. Critically, only a media representative was present, while representatives from the DOJ and an elected public official were absent. When questioned about the reason for conducting the inventory at the police station, the police officer stated that “the crowd is getting bigger.” However, the court found this explanation insufficient to justify the non-compliance with the rules.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the police officers had received confidential information in the morning and had arranged the buy-bust operation for 5:00 PM on the same day. This provided ample opportunity to ensure the presence of the required witnesses. The absence of the DOJ representative and an elected public official, without any justifiable reason or evidence of genuine effort to secure their presence, was a significant lapse. This is a departure from standard operating procedure, and can create reasonable doubt that the court must consider. As stated in the decision:

The law, however, also allows non-compliance in exceptional cases where the following requisites are present: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. In these exceptional cases, the seizures and custody over the confiscated items shall not be rendered void and invalid.

The Supreme Court referenced several prior cases, including Limbo v. People, where convictions were reversed due to unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule. In Limbo, the Court emphasized that the mere fact that witnesses contacted by the police failed to appear within a brief period is not a reasonable justification for non-compliance. The police must demonstrate genuine and sufficient efforts to comply with the witness requirement. Similarly, in People v. Mola and People v. Pascua, convictions were reversed due to the failure to justify the impracticality of conducting the inventory at the place of arrest and the absence of all the necessary witnesses.

The Court noted that the presence of all three necessary witnesses during the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items is mandatory. The rationale is to guard against police practices of planting evidence. Without the presence of these witnesses, the integrity of the evidence becomes questionable, and the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out. The following table illustrates the impact of witness presence:

Witness Presence	Impact on Case
All three witnesses present (DOJ, Media, Public Official)	Strong presumption of evidence integrity
Partial witness presence (e.g., only media representative)	Compromised evidence integrity; requires strong justification for absences
No witnesses present	Highly questionable evidence; likely acquittal

The Supreme Court reversed Salenga’s conviction, emphasizing that the irregularities at the point of seizure, specifically the absence of the mandatory witnesses, made it futile to prove the subsequent links in the chain of custody. The Court underscored that the failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements creates reasonable doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, thus warranting the accused’s acquittal.

FAQs

What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule requires that the handling of seized drugs be documented from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring its integrity and evidentiary value. This prevents tampering or substitution of evidence.
Who are the mandatory witnesses required during the inventory and photography of seized drugs?	The mandatory witnesses are representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and any elected public official. Their presence ensures transparency and prevents potential abuse in handling evidence.
What happens if the required witnesses are not present during the inventory?	The absence of the required witnesses can compromise the integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. The prosecution must provide justifiable reasons for their absence.
Can the inventory be conducted at a location other than the place of arrest?	Yes, but only if it is impractical to conduct the inventory at the place of arrest. It can be done at the nearest police station or office, but justifiable reasons must be provided.
What constitutes a justifiable reason for non-compliance with the chain of custody rule?	Justifiable reasons may include safety concerns, remoteness of the area, or genuine efforts to secure the presence of the witnesses that prove futile. These reasons must be clearly stated and proven.
What is the significance of documenting the chain of custody?	Proper documentation ensures accountability and transparency in handling drug evidence. It also helps to prevent any doubts about the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.
How does the chain of custody rule protect the rights of the accused?	The chain of custody rule protects the accused from potential abuse and ensures that they are not convicted based on tampered or substituted evidence. It upholds their right to a fair trial.
What is the impact of failing to comply with the chain of custody rule?	Failure to comply with the chain of custody rule can lead to the inadmissibility of the seized drugs as evidence, resulting in the acquittal of the accused. It weakens the prosecution’s case.

The People v. Salenga case underscores the critical importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. The absence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized drugs, without justifiable reasons, can create reasonable doubt and lead to acquittal. This decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to strictly comply with the procedural requirements outlined in RA 9165 to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs.

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 v. Salenga, G.R. No. 239903, September 11, 2019