In People v. Quesido, the Supreme Court clarified that strict adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug cases is not always mandatory. The ruling emphasizes that as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are preserved, non-compliance with procedural requirements does not automatically render the arrest illegal or the evidence inadmissible. This means that even if law enforcement officers deviate from the prescribed steps, a conviction can still stand if the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the drug presented in court is the same one seized from the accused.

From Shanty to Shabu: When a Hysterical Arrest Tests the Chain of Custody

Lolita Quesido was convicted of selling 0.028 grams of shabu, a violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case hinged on a buy-bust operation conducted by the Manila Police District’s District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (DAID-SOTG). Acting on a tip, police officers set up a sting operation where SPO1 Federico Chua acted as the poseur-buyer. According to the prosecution, Quesido sold a sachet of shabu to Chua in exchange for two P100 bills. The arrest that followed was chaotic, with Quesido allegedly becoming hysterical and shouting, attracting a crowd. This commotion raised questions about whether the police properly followed protocol in handling the seized evidence.

At the heart of Quesido’s appeal was the argument that the police failed to strictly comply with the procedural requirements outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, specifically Section 21(1), Article II. This section details the procedures for handling seized illegal drugs, including the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. Quesido claimed that the chain of custody for the shabu was not properly established, casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence against her.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument. The Court acknowledged that while the police did not strictly follow the procedures outlined in Section 21(1), this non-compliance did not automatically invalidate the seizure or render the evidence inadmissible. The Court emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. This principle is crucial in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court cited its previous rulings, which have consistently held that the primary concern is whether the drug presented in court is the same one seized from the accused, and whether its integrity has been maintained.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 also recognize that strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is not always possible. Section 21(a) of the IRR provides that non-compliance with these requirements may be justified under certain circumstances, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer. This provision allows for flexibility in situations where immediate compliance is impractical or dangerous.

The chain of custody is defined 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.” This record includes the identity and signature of each person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the dates and times of transfer, and the condition of the item at each stage.

In Malillin v. People, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of the chain of custody rule, stating:

Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be established with moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authorized by law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.

To establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, the prosecution must prove several links. The case of People v. Remigio itemized what must be proven:

First, 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 by the forensic chemist to the court.

In Quesido’s case, the Court found that the first crucial link was substantially complied with. SPO1 Chua testified that he marked the seized plastic sachet of shabu with the initials “LQB” at the police station after removing Quesido from the scene due to the commotion. The Court deemed this justifiable, as the officer had to prioritize safety and prevent a potentially dangerous situation. This decision highlights the practical considerations that law enforcement officers face during drug operations and recognizes that strict adherence to protocol may not always be feasible.

SPO1 Chua then turned over the marked shabu to PO3 Jimenez, the investigating officer. PO3 Jimenez corroborated this in his testimony. Jimenez prepared a letter-request for laboratory examination, which was transmitted along with the seized plastic sachet to the Crime Laboratory Office of the MPD. PSI Reyes then issued Chemistry Report No. D-1361-06. This report confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, in the specimen. The prosecution then presented the seized plastic sachet of shabu in court, marking it as Exhibit “C.”

The Court has consistently held that substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule is sufficient, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug items are preserved. Furthermore, the Court gave significant weight to the credible testimony of police officers. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence of improper conduct or ill-motive, the testimony of officers who conduct buy-bust operations is generally given full faith and credit. In this case, Quesido offered only a self-serving denial, failing to provide any evidence of ill-motive on the part of the police officers. Without any substantial challenge to the credibility of the officers or the integrity of the evidence, the Court upheld the conviction.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the non-compliance with the strict procedures for handling seized drugs, as outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, invalidated the seizure and rendered the evidence inadmissible. The Supreme Court clarified that substantial compliance is sufficient if the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs are preserved.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the documented process of tracking seized drugs from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court. This process includes identifying each person who had custody of the drugs, the dates and times of transfer, and the condition of the drugs at each stage, ensuring the integrity of the evidence.
What is the significance of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs, including the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused and other witnesses. It aims to ensure transparency and prevent tampering or substitution of the evidence.
What happens if the police fail to strictly comply with Section 21?	The Supreme Court has clarified that non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate the seizure or render the evidence inadmissible. The key is whether the prosecution can demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs have been preserved, despite the procedural lapses.
What is a buy-bust operation?	A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by law enforcement officers to apprehend individuals involved in illegal drug activities. It typically involves an undercover officer posing as a buyer to purchase drugs from the suspect, leading to their arrest.
Why was the marking of the seized drugs not done at the scene of the crime?	The marking was not done at the scene because the arresting officer had to immediately remove the accused from the area due to a commotion and the risk of a potentially dangerous situation. The Court deemed this a justifiable reason for deviating from the standard procedure.
What is the role of the forensic chemist in drug cases?	The forensic chemist examines the seized substance to determine its composition and whether it contains illegal drugs. The chemist then prepares a report detailing the findings, which serves as crucial evidence in court.
What is the evidentiary weight of a denial in drug cases?	A simple denial is generally considered a weak defense, especially when compared to the positive testimonies of law enforcement officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. To overcome the presumption of regularity, the accused must present clear and convincing evidence that the police officers acted with ill-motive or failed to properly perform their duties.

The People v. Quesido case reinforces the principle that while procedural guidelines are important, they should not be applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice. The Court’s emphasis on preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs provides a practical framework for evaluating drug cases, balancing the rights of the accused with the need to effectively combat illegal drug activities.

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. LOLITA QUESIDO Y BADARANG, G.R. No. 189351, April 10, 2013