In drug-related cases, the integrity of the evidence is paramount. The Supreme Court has consistently held that failure to properly establish the chain of custody of seized drugs raises reasonable doubt and warrants acquittal. This means that law enforcement must meticulously document and preserve drug evidence from the moment of seizure until its presentation in court. Any break in this chain can compromise the case and undermine the conviction. The absence of proper marking, inventory, and documentation procedures creates a significant gap that the prosecution must overcome to secure a guilty verdict.

When a Shabu Sachet Vanishes: Unraveling the Chain of Custody

This case revolves around the arrest and conviction of Siegfred Cabellon for the alleged sale of 0.03 grams of shabu, a dangerous drug. The prosecution presented evidence of a buy-bust operation where Cabellon purportedly sold the drug to a poseur-buyer. However, critical questions arose regarding the handling and identification of the seized shabu. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, particularly concerning the chain of custody of the seized drug. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Cabellon’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged procedural lapses in handling the evidence.

The Supreme Court emphasized that in drug cases, the corpus delicti, which is the illicit drug itself, must be presented as evidence, and its identity must be clearly established. The Court cited People v. Jaafar, highlighting the importance of the chain of custody to ensure that the drugs seized from the accused are the same ones tested in the laboratory and offered in court. The Court quoted:

In all prosecutions for violations of Republic Act No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Its existence is essential to a judgment of conviction. Hence, the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly established.

Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed.

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 outlines the procedure for handling seized dangerous drugs. It mandates that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure, must physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These individuals are required to sign the inventory, ensuring transparency and accountability.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 provide further details on this procedure. It allows for some flexibility, stating that non-compliance with these requirements may be excused under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, in this case, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the integrity of the shabu was maintained.

The court noted a significant gap in the chain of custody. PO3 Bucao, one of the arresting officers, testified that the poseur-buyer handed him the sachet of shabu. He then passed it to PO3 Abellar, who was supposed to prepare the request for chemical analysis. However, PO3 Bucao could not identify who placed the markings on the sachet. This failure to establish who marked the evidence created a critical break in the chain.

The Supreme Court, citing People v. Nandi, reiterated the four essential links that must be established to demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody:

[F]irst, 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 that the prosecution failed to present evidence that the seized sachet was marked by any of the apprehending officers. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the inventory and photography requirements of Section 21 were followed, nor was any explanation provided for the non-compliance. PO3 Bucao testified that he turned over the unmarked sachet to PO3 Abellar, who supposedly prepared the request for chemical analysis. However, the request was actually signed by P/Superintendent Romeo Pagal Perigo, not PO3 Abellar, creating further uncertainty about the chain of custody.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the small quantity of shabu involved (0.03 grams) heightened the risk of tampering or planting of evidence. This should have prompted the lower courts to exercise greater scrutiny and not rely solely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers. The Court then cited People v. Holgado:

While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Mallillin v. People, this court said that “the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives.”

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved Siegfred Cabellon’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Republic Act No. 9165. The case hinged on the integrity and handling of the seized 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 seizure to its presentation in court. It involves recording every person who handled the evidence, as well as the dates, times, and locations where the evidence was stored.
What does Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 require?	Section 21 mandates that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure, must physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. These individuals must sign the inventory.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Strict compliance can be excused if there are justifiable grounds, but the prosecution must still prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Failure to do so can lead to acquittal.
Why was Siegfred Cabellon acquitted in this case?	Cabellon was acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. There was no clear evidence of who marked the seized shabu, and the documentation of its handling was incomplete.
What is the significance of the amount of drugs seized?	While the amount of drugs seized is not, by itself, grounds for acquittal, a minuscule amount like 0.03 grams heightens the risk of tampering or planting of evidence. This requires the courts to exercise greater scrutiny in ensuring compliance with Section 21.
Who has the burden of proving the chain of custody?	The prosecution has the burden of proving an unbroken chain of custody. They must present sufficient evidence to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.
What is the ‘corpus delicti’ in drug cases?	The corpus delicti is the body of the crime, which in drug cases is the illicit drug itself. Its existence and identity are essential for a conviction.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in drug cases, particularly the chain of custody rule. This ruling protects individuals from potential abuses and ensures that convictions are based on reliable evidence. Moving forward, law enforcement agencies must prioritize strict compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 to maintain the integrity of drug evidence and uphold the principles of justice.

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. Cabellon, G.R. No. 207229, September 20, 2017