This Supreme Court decision clarifies that in drug-related cases, strict adherence to procedural rules regarding the chain of custody of evidence is not always mandatory. The ruling emphasizes that as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, minor deviations from the prescribed procedures do not automatically invalidate the case. This means that the focus is on ensuring the reliability of the evidence rather than rigidly following each step of the chain of custody, providing some flexibility to law enforcement while safeguarding the rights of the accused. This ruling acknowledges that a perfect chain is not always attainable, and substantial compliance that protects the integrity of the evidence can still support a conviction.

When a Head Scratch Leads to a Drug Conviction: Evaluating Chain of Custody

The case of *People of the Philippines v. Orlando Fernandez y Abarquiz* revolves around the appellant’s conviction for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Fernandez was apprehended in a buy-bust operation for allegedly selling methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. The prosecution presented evidence that included the seized drugs, drug paraphernalia, and marked money used in the operation. Fernandez contested his conviction, primarily arguing that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, as required by law, and that the police officers did not immediately mark, photograph, and inventory the confiscated items. This case highlights the ongoing tension between procedural requirements designed to protect individual rights and the practical realities of law enforcement in drug cases.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the procedural lapses in handling the seized items compromised the integrity of the evidence, thereby warranting the appellant’s acquittal. The defense argued that the failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which outlines the chain of custody requirements, cast doubt on the appellant’s guilt. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing that the primary concern is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, rather than a rigid adherence to procedural formalities.

The Court reiterated the essential elements in a prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. These include the identification of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment made. Fundamentally, it must be proved that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the *corpus delicti*, which, in drug cases, is the dangerous drug itself. Here, the prosecution presented PO3 Baruelo who acted as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation. PO3 Baruelo identified Fernandez as the seller, stating that Fernandez handed him a plastic sachet containing dangerous drugs in exchange for a P500 peso bill.

At the heart of Fernandez’s defense was the assertion that the police officers failed to comply with Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs. This section is vital for maintaining the integrity of drug evidence from the point of seizure to its presentation in court. Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 states:

(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 the 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[.]

The Supreme Court cited *People v. Guzon*, emphasizing that procedural lapses are not automatically fatal to the prosecution’s case, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. While PO3 Baruelo did not immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest, the Court found this procedural lapse to be not detrimental to the prosecution’s case. The marking occurred at the nearest police station, which was deemed more practicable under the circumstances. Moreover, the required witnesses under Section 21 of the IRR were present during the physical inventory and photographing of the confiscated items.

The Court acknowledged that a perfect chain of custody is not always attainable and that the saving clause in the IRR applies in this case. The police officers demonstrated credible efforts to preserve the integrity of the drugs. According to the court, it can be ascertained with moral certainty that the confiscated items were the same as those presented in court. Upon confiscation, PO3 Baruelo and PO3 Domalanta took the seized items to PCP6 Bonuan Tondaligan, where PO3 Baruelo marked each item with his initials. Then, an inventory receipt was prepared with all the required witnesses. The Affidavit of Arrest and the Request for Laboratory Examination were prepared by PO3 Baruelo and PI Calimlim, respectively, and the seized items were transported by PO2 Mondero to Lingayen, Pangasinan. Forensic Chemist PSI Roderos examined the plastic sachet and the improvised water pipe, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

The Court addressed Fernandez’s defense that he was merely a referring agent, stating that this argument was inconsequential. The elements of the crime under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 were clearly proven. Even assuming that Fernandez acted only as a referring agent, such conduct still constitutes a violation of the law. Section 5 states:

Section 5. *Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals*. – The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transpot1any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

The Supreme Court highlighted that denial, as a defense, is inherently weak and disfavored, especially in light of positive identification of the accused. Fernandez’s initial claim that he merely referred the buyer to another seller was deemed insufficient to overturn his conviction. The Court emphasized that all elements of the crime were proven, and even acting as a broker in the sale of dangerous drugs constitutes a violation.

In conclusion, this case reinforces the principle that substantial compliance with chain of custody requirements is sufficient in drug cases, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. It also demonstrates that even acting as a broker or referring agent in the sale of illegal drugs can lead to conviction under RA 9165.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether procedural lapses in the chain of custody of seized drugs invalidated the accused’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
What is the ‘chain of custody’ in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented process of tracking seized drugs from the moment of confiscation to presentation in court, ensuring their integrity and evidentiary value.
What does RA 9165 say about the chain of custody?	RA 9165, through its Implementing Rules and Regulations, outlines specific procedures for handling seized drugs, including immediate inventory, photographing, and proper documentation.
What did the Court say about strict compliance with chain of custody rules?	The Court clarified that strict compliance is not always mandatory. Substantial compliance is sufficient as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.
What is the ‘saving clause’ in the chain of custody rule?	The “saving clause” provides that non-compliance with chain of custody requirements will not invalidate the seizure if justifiable grounds exist and the integrity of the evidence is maintained.
What are the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs?	The elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.
What role did the accused play in the alleged drug sale?	The accused was alleged to have sold methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer during a buy-bust operation.
Can a person be convicted for acting as a broker in a drug sale?	Yes, Section 5 of RA 9165 explicitly states that any person who acts as a broker in drug transactions is also liable.

This case provides essential guidance on how courts evaluate chain of custody issues in drug-related cases, emphasizing the importance of preserving evidence integrity while allowing for practical considerations in law enforcement. It reflects a balanced approach that aims to uphold justice without sacrificing 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. Fernandez, G.R. No. 210617, December 07, 2016