In illegal drug sale cases, a break in the chain of custody can be a get-out-of-jail-free card. But not in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Bernabe Aneslag and Jocelyn Concepcion for illegal drug sale, emphasizing that even if there are lapses in following the strict chain of custody rule for seized drugs, the conviction can still stand if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. This ruling provides clarity on how the chain of custody rule is applied, providing guidance to law enforcement and ensuring that convictions are upheld where the evidence remains reliable.

When Evidence Speaks: Affirming Drug Sale Conviction Despite Procedural Gaps

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Bernabe Aneslag y Andrade arose from an incident on March 30, 2003, when Bernabe Aneslag, along with Menda Aneslag, Mae Elarmo, and Jocelyn Concepcion, were apprehended in a buy-bust operation for allegedly selling six plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. An Information was filed against them, alleging a violation of Section 5 in relation with Sec. 26 of Article II of RA 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Menda and Mae were later acquitted, while Bernabe and Jocelyn were convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a decision which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The appellants then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, questioning whether the CA erred in affirming their conviction despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

At the heart of the appeal was the argument that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, casting doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. Appellants pointed out discrepancies in the weight of the seized shabu, the lack of immediate marking of the items, and the absence of a certificate of inventory, among other alleged procedural lapses. Thus, the Supreme Court had to decide whether these procedural imperfections were fatal to the prosecution’s case, or whether the conviction could be sustained based on the totality of the evidence presented.

The Supreme Court turned to Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which outlines the procedure for handling seized illegal 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:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the 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; x x x

However, the Court clarified that non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically render the arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible. The crucial factor is whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, as emphasized in Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165:

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:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the 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; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/ team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. x x x

To determine whether the integrity and evidentiary value were preserved, the Court looked into the chain of custody, which, according to Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, means:

b. “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 made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

The Supreme Court cited Malillin v. People, emphasizing the importance of establishing the elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance with moral certainty, alongside the fact that such possession is unauthorized by law. The dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti of the offense, and its identity must be established beyond doubt. The chain of custody ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed, serving as a method of authenticating evidence.

In this case, the Court found that even though the procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly followed, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were duly preserved. SPO2 Salo, from the time of the arrest and confiscation until the turnover for laboratory examination, maintained sole possession of the shabu packs. His testimony, identifying the packs and the markings he made, was crucial.

Moreover, the Court addressed the discrepancy in the weight of the shabu packs alleged in the Information (240 grams) versus the weight determined by the forensic chemist (210 grams). It ruled that this variance was insufficient to undermine the finding that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu was duly preserved. The Court suggested reasons for the variance, such as the accuracy of the weighing scales and the removal of representative samples for testing, which did not invalidate the established chain of custody.

The Court also dismissed the appellants’ claims of inconsistent testimonies from prosecution witnesses. Alleged inconsistencies regarding who was holding the red bag containing the shabu were deemed minor. The trial court’s finding that Jocelyn handed the bag to SPO2 Salo after he paid for the shabu was considered more credible, as SPO2 Salo was present during the transaction. Further, arguments about the lack of ultraviolet powder examination and fingerprinting on appellant Bernabe were rejected, as neither law nor jurisprudence mandates these procedures.

Finally, the Court addressed the argument that police officers should have secured a search warrant, agreeing with the trial court that it would have been impracticable to do so. The surveillance was only to determine roles for an anticipated transaction, and the buy-bust operation justified the warrantless arrest. Since appellants were caught in flagrante delicto, police were authorized to apprehend them and search for evidence related to the crime.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of shabu: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the drug sold and its payment. Hence, the CA’s decision affirming the appellants’ conviction was upheld.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved the chain of custody of the seized drugs, despite some procedural lapses, to sustain a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The defense argued that inconsistencies and non-compliance with mandatory procedures cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule refers to the process of documenting and tracking the movement of seized drugs from the moment of confiscation to their presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence by accounting for each person who handled the drugs, the dates and times they were handled, and any changes in condition.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, it raises doubts about the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, potentially leading to the inadmissibility of the evidence. However, the Supreme Court clarified that non-compliance with the strict chain of custody rule does not automatically render the evidence inadmissible if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.
Was there a discrepancy in the weight of the seized drugs?	Yes, there was a discrepancy between the weight of the drugs as alleged in the Information (240 grams) and the weight determined by the forensic chemist (210 grams). The Supreme Court considered this discrepancy but found it insufficient to undermine the finding that the integrity of the drugs was preserved.
Why didn’t the police obtain a search warrant?	The police did not need a search warrant because the appellants were caught in a buy-bust operation, which is an exception to the warrant requirement. In such cases, the police are authorized to arrest the suspects and search them for evidence related to the crime.
What is the significance of marking the seized drugs?	Marking the seized drugs is crucial for identification purposes and to ensure that the drugs presented in court are the same ones that were seized from the accused. In this case, SPO2 Salo marked the drugs with his initials to establish a clear link between the seized items and the evidence presented.
Is it necessary to conduct ultraviolet powder examination?	No, ultraviolet powder examination is not legally required to prove the commission of the offense. The Supreme Court clarified that the crucial element is proving the delivery of the prohibited drugs to the poseur-buyer and presenting the confiscated drugs before the court.
What was the court’s final ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the conviction of Bernabe Aneslag and Jocelyn Concepcion for illegal sale of shabu. The Court found that the prosecution had proven their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

This case reinforces the principle that substantial compliance with chain of custody procedures is sufficient, provided the integrity of the evidence is maintained. While strict adherence to protocol is ideal, minor deviations will not necessarily invalidate a conviction if the core evidence remains untainted and reliable. This ruling offers a balanced approach, ensuring justice is served without being overly constrained by technicalities.

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. BERNABE ANESLAG, G.R. No. 185386, November 21, 2012