The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled in People v. Dela Cruz that strict adherence to the chain of custody rule for seized drug evidence is essential to uphold an accused’s right to due process. The ruling emphasizes that any break in the chain of custody, especially with small quantities of drugs, raises doubts about the integrity of the evidence and can lead to acquittal. This underscores the necessity for law enforcement to meticulously follow procedures that safeguard the authenticity of drug evidence, ensuring fair trials and protecting individuals from potential injustice.

Pocketing Evidence: When Police Handling Undermines Drug Case Conviction

Garry Dela Cruz was apprehended in a buy-bust operation and charged with violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for allegedly selling and possessing shabu. The prosecution claimed that PO1 Wilfredo Bobon, acting as a poseur-buyer, purchased a sachet of shabu from Dela Cruz. After the arrest, a subsequent search allegedly led to the discovery of six more sachets. However, instead of following protocol, PO1 Bobon placed the purchased sachet in his right pocket and the other six in his left pocket. This unusual handling of evidence became a central point of contention, raising serious doubts about the integrity of the chain of custody.

The case hinges significantly on Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which outlines the procedure for the custody and handling of seized drugs. This section aims to maintain the integrity and evidentiary value of confiscated items. The law mandates that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure, must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media. These individuals are required to sign the inventory, ensuring transparency and accountability.

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:

The significance of strict compliance with Section 21 cannot be overstated, as failure to comply can lead to the exclusion of evidence and, consequently, the acquittal of the accused. In this case, several procedural lapses were evident. The prosecution admitted that no physical inventory of the seized items was conducted at the place of seizure or the nearest police station, nor were the items photographed as required. The absence of these safeguards raised concerns about the integrity of the evidence, particularly given the small amount of drugs involved.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of establishing a clear chain of custody, referencing the case of People v. Nandi. In Nandi, the Court outlined four essential links that must be established: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug; (2) the turnover of the drug to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist; and (4) the submission of the marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. Failure to establish these links can compromise the integrity of the evidence and undermine the prosecution’s case.

In People v. Nandi, this court explained that four (4) links “should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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 from the forensic chemist to the court.”

The Court found PO1 Bobon’s actions of keeping the seized narcotics in his pockets as reckless and dubious, emphasizing that this circumstance underscores the importance of strictly complying with Section 21. The Court stated that the officer’s subsequent identification of the items coming from his pockets was self-serving. The prosecution’s admission that the drugs were in the sole possession of the police officer, in such close proximity, further weakened their case.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court in People v. Holgado underscored that even acts that ostensibly approximate compliance with Section 21 are insufficient if they do not actually meet the requirements of the law. Merely marking the items, without a physical inventory or photographs in the presence of required individuals, is not enough. This strict interpretation is essential, especially in cases involving small quantities of drugs, which are more susceptible to tampering or planting.

The Court contrasted the circumstances with cases where the requirements of Section 21 were justifiably dispensed with. The law provides a proviso for non-compliance “under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.” However, in this case, the prosecution failed to demonstrate any justifiable grounds for the failure to comply with Section 21. They simply insisted on the self-serving assertion that the integrity of the seized sachets was preserved, despite the clear lapses.

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, thereby casting doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti. Given the procedural lapses and the miniscule amount of narcotics involved, the Court found that there was no basis to convict Dela Cruz beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and acquitted Dela Cruz, emphasizing the need for law enforcement to adhere strictly to the requirements of Section 21 to safeguard the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Supreme Court focused on whether the procedural lapses compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the documented and unbroken transfer of evidence from the time of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and authenticity of the evidence by tracking its handling, storage, and analysis.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	It is crucial because illegal drugs are easily susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution. A broken chain of custody can cast doubt on whether the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused, potentially leading to a wrongful conviction.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure. This must be done in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media, who must sign the inventory.
What happens if law enforcement fails to comply with Section 21?	Failure to comply with Section 21 raises doubts about the identity and integrity of the evidence. Unless justifiable grounds are shown and the integrity of the evidence is proven to be preserved, such non-compliance can result in the exclusion of the evidence and the acquittal of the accused.
What was the specific problem with the evidence handling in this case?	The arresting officer placed the seized drugs in his pockets instead of following proper protocol. This raised concerns about potential tampering and compromised the chain of custody, making it difficult to prove the drugs’ integrity.
What does the Court mean by “corpus delicti”?	In criminal law, corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, or the actual substance or thing upon which the crime has been committed. In drug cases, the corpus delicti is the seized illegal drug itself, which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be the substance involved in the crime.
What is the significance of the small amount of drugs in this case?	The small amount of drugs seized amplified the need for strict compliance with Section 21. Small quantities are more susceptible to tampering or planting, making it crucial to ensure the evidence’s integrity through proper procedures.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Dela Cruz serves as a potent reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow the procedures outlined in Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The integrity of drug evidence is paramount, and even minor deviations from protocol can jeopardize the prosecution’s case. It is crucial for law enforcers to prioritize training and adherence to these guidelines, as these safeguards protect both the rights of the accused and the integrity of the criminal justice system.

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. GARRY DELA CRUZ, G.R. No. 205821, October 01, 2014