In People v. Del Rosario, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that inconsistencies in the testimonies of police officers regarding the marking of seized drugs created doubt as to whether the shabu presented in court was the same one confiscated from the accused. This decision reinforces the critical importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody in drug-related cases to protect the rights of the accused.

When Conflicting Testimonies Cloud Drug Evidence: Can Reasonable Doubt Override a Buy-Bust?

The case began with a buy-bust operation conducted by the Las Piñas City Drug Enforcement Unit, acting on information about Ronald M. del Rosario’s alleged drug-selling activities. The police officers involved, PO2 Jerome Mendoza and PO3 Herminio Besmonte, presented differing accounts of how the seized shabu was marked and handled. These inconsistencies became the focal point of the Supreme Court’s review, raising questions about the reliability and integrity of the evidence presented against Del Rosario.

At trial, PO2 Mendoza testified that PO2 Dalagdagan marked the seized plastic sachet of shabu with Del Rosario’s initials and the date, while PO3 Besmonte, who was directly involved in the buy-bust operation, initially stated that PO2 Dalagdagan marked the sachet. Later, he claimed that he himself marked the sachet with a different marking before handing it over. The conflicting testimonies created a significant discrepancy that cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence. The defense argued that the inconsistencies raised reasonable doubt as to whether the substance presented in court was indeed the same one allegedly seized from Del Rosario, challenging the integrity of the chain of custody.

The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional presumption of innocence, stating that an accused person like Del Rosario must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court referred to Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to justify a conviction in a criminal case. In the context of illegal drug cases, Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, outlines the penalties for the sale, trading, delivery, or distribution of dangerous drugs. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and the payment made.

A critical aspect of proving the guilt of the accused in drug cases is establishing an unbroken **chain of custody** for the seized drugs. This principle is outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, which details the procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. It states:

SEC. 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;

The Implementing Rules and Regulations further elaborate on these requirements. The chain of custody ensures that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved throughout the process, from seizure to presentation in court. The Supreme Court has previously overlooked non-compliance with these requirements in some cases. However, it has consistently done so only when the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items remained intact.

In this case, the Supreme Court highlighted the failure of the prosecution to establish a clear chain of custody for the seized shabu. The police officers did not conduct an immediate inventory or photograph the seized drugs in Del Rosario’s presence, as required by law. Furthermore, the testimonies of PO2 Mendoza and PO3 Besmonte contained significant inconsistencies regarding the marking of the plastic sachet. The Court, quoting People v. Alcuizar, emphasized that:

The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug’s unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.

The “chain of custody” is defined by Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, as “the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs…from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.” The Court, citing Malillin v. People, further explained the importance of this chain, noting that it ensures the exhibit’s level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering is minimized.

The inconsistencies between the testimonies of PO2 Mendoza and PO3 Besmonte raised significant doubts about the identity of the seized drug. PO2 Mendoza testified that PO2 Dalagdagan marked the plastic sachet, while PO3 Besmonte initially claimed the same. Later, PO3 Besmonte testified that he marked the plastic sachet himself before turning it over to PO2 Dalagdagan. These contradictions led the Court to question whether the plastic sachet identified in court was the same one seized from Del Rosario. This inconsistency was presented in the following table.

Officer	Testimony Regarding Marking of the Sachet
PO2 Mendoza	Stated that PO2 Dalagdagan marked the plastic sachet.
PO3 Besmonte	Initially claimed PO2 Dalagdagan marked it, then later stated he marked it himself.

The prosecution failed to provide a logical and rational explanation for these inconsistencies. The Court noted that PO3 Besmonte could not explain why the marking on the plastic sachet presented in court differed from the marking he claimed to have made. The Court of Appeals’ explanation for the discrepancies was not supported by the facts on record. Therefore, the Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that there was no reason to doubt the identity of the seized drug. The court said that, while Del Rosario’s defense of denial was weak, his conviction should be based on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the shabu presented in court was the same one confiscated from the accused, Ronald M. del Rosario. The discrepancies in police officer testimonies about the marking of the seized drugs raised doubts about its authenticity.
What is the ‘chain of custody’ in drug cases?	The ‘chain of custody’ refers to the documented sequence of possession and handling of seized drugs, from the moment of confiscation to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence by tracking each person who handled it, along with the dates and times of transfer.
Why is the chain of custody important?	The chain of custody is crucial to prevent tampering, alteration, or substitution of the evidence. Without a clear chain of custody, doubts arise about the authenticity of the evidence, potentially leading to acquittal.
What happens if there are inconsistencies in the chain of custody?	Inconsistencies in the chain of custody can create reasonable doubt, making it difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court may deem the evidence inadmissible if the chain of custody is compromised.
What did the police officers do wrong in this case?	The police officers failed to follow proper procedures for inventory and photographing the seized drugs immediately after the arrest. The testimonies of the police officers were inconsistent regarding who marked the drugs and what markings were used.
What is the legal basis for the chain of custody rule?	The legal basis for the chain of custody rule is found in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. These provisions outline the procedures for handling and disposing of confiscated drugs to maintain their integrity.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Ronald M. del Rosario due to the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimonies compromised the integrity of the evidence.
What is the implication of this ruling for future drug cases?	This ruling emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug cases. Law enforcement agencies must ensure proper documentation and handling of seized drugs to avoid creating doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Del Rosario serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding constitutional rights and ensuring fair trials. The ruling underscores the significance of maintaining a clear and unbroken chain of custody in drug-related cases. It highlights the need for law enforcement agencies to strictly adhere to established procedures to protect the integrity of evidence and safeguard the rights of the accused.

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 v. Ronald M. del Rosario, G.R. No. 188107, December 05, 2012