In People v. Dahil and Castro, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the strict chain of custody requirements for seized drugs, as mandated by Republic Act No. 9165. This ruling underscores the critical importance of meticulously documenting and preserving the integrity of drug evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. The decision reinforces that any break in the chain of custody, or failure to adhere to prescribed procedures, can cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused, leading to acquittal.

Cracks in the Chain: When Drug Evidence Fails the Test of Integrity

The case arose from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) where Ramil Doria Dahil and Rommel Castro were apprehended for allegedly selling and possessing marijuana. They were charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Dahil was accused of selling 26.8098 grams of marijuana and possessing an additional 20.6642 grams, while Castro was charged with possessing 130.8286 grams of marijuana.

The prosecution presented evidence, including testimonies from PO2 Arieltino Corpuz and SPO1 Eliseo Licu, detailing the buy-bust operation and the subsequent arrest of Dahil and Castro. According to the prosecution, PO2 Corpuz acted as the poseur-buyer, purchasing marijuana from Dahil, while Castro received the marked money. Following the transaction, the buy-bust team arrested both individuals, seizing additional marijuana from their possession. However, the defense contested the validity of the arrests and the handling of the seized evidence, alleging irregularities in the chain of custody.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found both accused guilty, sentencing them to life imprisonment and imposing substantial fines. The RTC was convinced that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and possession of marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, upholding the conviction of Dahil and Castro. The CA found that the prosecution had adequately established the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, dismissing the accused’s claims of procedural lapses.

The Supreme Court, however, took a different view. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the law enforcement officers had substantially complied with the chain of custody procedure mandated by R.A. No. 9165. The Court emphasized that an unbroken chain of custody is essential to establish the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. This ensures that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused, preventing any doubts about the authenticity of the evidence.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 outlines specific procedures for handling seized drugs, including immediate physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused, or their representative, and representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 further elaborate on these procedures, specifying that the inventory and photography should occur at the place of seizure or the nearest police station. These requirements aim to safeguard the integrity of the evidence and prevent tampering or substitution.

In this case, the Supreme Court found several critical lapses in the chain of custody. First, the inventory of the seized marijuana was not conducted immediately after the seizure but rather at the police station. The prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for this delay, raising concerns about the handling of the evidence in the interim. Second, there were conflicting accounts regarding who prepared the Inventory of Property Seized. PO2 Corpuz testified that it was their investigator, while SPO1 Licu identified a different individual, creating uncertainty about the accuracy of the documentation.

Third, the testimonies of PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu were contradictory regarding whether the seized items were photographed in the presence of the accused and the required representatives. PO2 Corpuz stated that no pictures were taken, while SPO1 Licu claimed that pictures of the accused were taken, leaving the Court with doubts about whether photographs of the drugs were indeed taken. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the crucial importance of marking the seized drugs immediately after seizure to distinguish them from other similar substances and prevent any potential for switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. The police officers admitted that the marking was not done at the place of seizure, but only at the police station. This delay raised concerns about the handling of the unmarked drugs during transportation and the possibility of alteration.

The Supreme Court emphasized that even if substantial compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is sufficient, the prosecution must still establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. To do this, the chain of custody must be meticulously documented, showing every link from the seizure and marking of the drugs to their presentation in court. This includes the transfer of the drugs from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist, and from the forensic chemist to the court. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence of the turnover of the seized items to SPO4 Jamisolamin, the investigating officer. The absence of testimony regarding this crucial step left a gap in the chain of custody, raising further doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

Additionally, the Court noted the lack of detail regarding the delivery of the seized drugs from the PDEA Office to the crime laboratory in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. PO2 Corpuz, who transported the drugs, failed to provide details on the safekeeping of the items overnight and who received them at the laboratory. The forensic chemist, Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran, did not appear in court, and her stipulated testimony lacked information on who received the drugs at the crime laboratory. This further weakened the prosecution’s case, as it failed to establish a crucial link in the chain of custody. The Supreme Court, citing previous jurisprudence, held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties could not apply in favor of the police officers, given the numerous lapses and irregularities in their handling of the seized drugs. The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused must prevail over the presumption of regularity.

Due to these significant procedural lapses and the failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted Dahil and Castro. The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, casting serious uncertainty over the identity of the seized marijuana presented as evidence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether law enforcement officers complied with the chain of custody procedure required by R.A. No. 9165, ensuring the integrity of seized drug evidence. The Supreme Court found significant lapses, leading to the accused’s acquittal.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of possession and handling of evidence, specifically seized drugs, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and authenticity of the evidence by tracking its movement and custody at each stage.
What are the key steps in the chain of custody according to R.A. 9165?	Key steps include immediate inventory and photography of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, or their representative, media, DOJ, and an elected public official. Proper marking, documentation, and secure transfer of the evidence between custodians are also essential.
Why is the chain of custody so important in drug cases?	It is vital to prevent tampering, substitution, or contamination of evidence, ensuring that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused. A broken chain of custody can cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.
What were the specific lapses in the chain of custody in this case?	Lapses included a delayed inventory conducted at the police station without justification, conflicting testimonies about who prepared the inventory, and uncertainty about whether the seized items were photographed in the presence of required witnesses.
What is the significance of marking the seized drugs?	Marking distinguishes the seized drugs from other similar substances, preventing accidental mixing or intentional substitution. Immediate marking after seizure establishes the starting point of the custodial link and ensures the integrity of the evidence.
What happens if the forensic chemist does not testify in court?	The testimony of the forensic chemist is crucial to establish the nature of the seized substance and confirm that it is indeed a dangerous drug. If the forensic chemist does not testify, the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to establish the chain of custody and the integrity of the evidence.
What is the role of the investigating officer in the chain of custody?	The investigating officer receives the seized drugs from the apprehending officer, conducts the investigation, and prepares the necessary documents for the criminal case. Their involvement is a vital link in the chain of custody.
What is the effect of non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165?	Non-compliance can render the seized evidence inadmissible in court, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. Substantial compliance is acceptable if the prosecution can prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Dahil and Castro serves as a reminder of the importance of strict adherence to the procedural requirements of R.A. No. 9165 in drug cases. Law enforcement officers must meticulously follow the chain of custody procedures to ensure the integrity and admissibility of seized evidence. Failure to do so can have significant consequences, potentially leading to the acquittal of individuals charged with drug offenses. The ruling highlights the need for thorough documentation, proper handling of evidence, and diligent compliance with legal protocols to uphold justice and protect 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 v. Dahil and Castro, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015