In People v. De Leon, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs. This ruling underscores the critical importance of adhering strictly to procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of confiscated substances. The decision emphasizes that discrepancies in evidence handling, lack of proper documentation, and failure to secure required witnesses can undermine the prosecution’s case, reinforcing the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent. This case clarifies the responsibilities of law enforcement in drug-related cases and highlights the judiciary’s role in protecting due process.

When Evidence Vanishes: Did the Prosecution Secure the Chain in a Drug Sale?

The case of People of the Philippines v. Victor De Leon arose from a buy-bust operation conducted on April 10, 2007, in Santiago City. Appellant Victor De Leon was charged with the illegal sale of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that De Leon sold 0.03 grams of shabu to a poseur-buyer for P1,000.00, using marked bills. However, the operation’s aftermath and subsequent handling of evidence became the focal point of contention, ultimately leading to De Leon’s acquittal. Central to the legal challenge was the argument that the prosecution failed to maintain a proper chain of custody, casting doubt on the integrity and identity of the seized drug evidence. Did the inconsistencies in the handling of evidence warrant a reversal of the lower courts’ guilty verdict?

The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of the buy-bust team members, particularly Intelligence Officer 1 (IO1) Lirio T. Ilao, who acted as the poseur-buyer. IO1 Ilao testified that after purchasing the shabu from De Leon, she retained custody of the item until it was marked at their office. However, conflicting testimonies from other team members, IO1 Seymoure Darius Sanchez and IO1 Dexter Asayco, suggested that the evidence was instead under the custody of their investigator, SPO1 Danilo Natividad, immediately following the operation. This contradiction raised significant concerns about the evidence’s handling.

According to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the chain of custody is the legally mandated procedure for handling seized drugs, providing a detailed protocol from the moment of confiscation to its presentation in court. This involves several critical steps: initial inventory and photographing of the drugs immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and an elected public official. The seized items must then be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory within twenty-four hours for examination. The forensic laboratory must issue a certification of the examination results within twenty-four hours of receipt.

Section 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 Supreme Court emphasized the importance of each link in the chain of custody, noting that it is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove the integrity of the evidence from seizure to court presentation. Any failure to comply strictly with Section 21 requires justifiable grounds for non-compliance. In this case, the prosecution’s failure to provide a clear and consistent account of who handled the drug evidence and when it was marked was a significant lapse.

The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses raised doubts about the integrity of the evidence. The varying claims regarding who took custody of the seized illegal drug after the buy-bust operation significantly undermined the prosecution’s case. IO1 Ilao testified that she kept custody of the recovered drug, while IO1 Asayco and IO1 Sanchez indicated that SPO1 Natividad was in possession of the seized items. These discrepancies were not minor oversights but fundamental contradictions that cast serious doubt on the reliability of the evidence presented.

Furthermore, the timing and location of the marking of the seized items were also contested. IO3 Asayco testified that the marking was done at De Leon’s house, while IO1 Ilao stated it was done at their office in Tuguegarao City. The Supreme Court highlighted that marking must be done immediately upon seizure and in the presence of the violator to maintain the integrity of the evidence. Given De Leon’s escape, the Court acknowledged that his presence was not possible. However, De Leon’s mother and other relatives were at the house, but no effort was made to secure their presence as his representatives.

The Court also noted the absence of representatives from the DOJ and the media during the inventory of the seized item, a requirement under Section 21. The prosecution only addressed the absence of an elective official, claiming that their presence could compromise the operation. The lack of a photograph of the seized item further compounded these lapses. While strict compliance with Section 21 may not always be possible, the prosecution must justify any non-compliance. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide any valid justification for these procedural lapses.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) convicted De Leon, focusing on the buy-bust operation’s consummation and the delivery of the illegal drug to the poseur-buyer. However, the Supreme Court found these conclusions insufficient due to the serious breaches in the chain of custody. The Court emphasized that even if the sale occurred, the failure to properly handle and document the evidence rendered it unreliable. Therefore, the Court had no choice but to acquit De Leon.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies that proper handling and documentation of evidence are essential to securing convictions. Failure to comply with these procedures can lead to the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest. This case also reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring that due process is followed at every stage of the criminal justice system.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to do so, leading to the accused’s acquittal.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule is a legal requirement that ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items, particularly in drug-related cases. It involves documenting and tracking the handling of evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring that the item presented is the same as the one confiscated.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	It is crucial to prevent contamination, alteration, or substitution of evidence. A broken chain of custody can raise doubts about the authenticity and reliability of the evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused.
What are the required steps in the chain of custody?	The steps include immediate inventory and photographing of the seized items in the presence of the accused and representatives from the media and DOJ, submission to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory within 24 hours, and issuance of a certification of examination results. Proper documentation and handling at each step are essential.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are compromised. The court may exclude the evidence, making it difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
What were the main discrepancies in this case?	The main discrepancies involved conflicting testimonies about who had custody of the drug evidence after the buy-bust operation and when and where the items were marked. Additionally, there was a failure to secure the presence of required witnesses during the inventory and a lack of photographs of the seized items.
Why was the accused acquitted in this case?	The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to provide a clear and consistent account of the handling of the drug evidence and did not justify the non-compliance with the chain of custody rule. This failure raised reasonable doubt about the integrity of the evidence, warranting an acquittal.
What does this case teach law enforcement agencies?	This case teaches law enforcement agencies the importance of strictly adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. It underscores the need for proper documentation, consistent testimonies, and compliance with legal requirements to ensure successful prosecution and conviction.

This case underscores the necessity for meticulous adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring due process. By demanding strict compliance with the chain of custody rule, the Court reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of evidence and upholding 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. De Leon, G.R. No. 227867, June 26, 2019