In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Shager Lacdan y Parto of illegal drug sale charges, emphasizing the crucial importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain, raising serious doubts about the identity and integrity of the seized substance. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual liberties by ensuring that law enforcement meticulously follows prescribed procedures in drug-related cases, preventing potential evidence tampering or substitution. It also serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for evidence handling, particularly in cases where the stakes are as high as life imprisonment.

Cracks in the Chain: When a Buy-Bust Leads to Acquittal

This case revolves around the arrest and conviction of Shager Lacdan for allegedly selling 0.04 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) during a buy-bust operation. The core legal question is whether the prosecution adequately proved the integrity and identity of the seized drug, a critical element in drug-related offenses. The defense argued that the police officers failed to comply with the strict chain of custody requirements outlined in Republic Act 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, thereby casting doubt on the evidence presented against Lacdan.

The prosecution presented the testimony of PO2 Alexander Gallega, the poseur-buyer, and other officers involved in the buy-bust operation. They described the surveillance, coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), and the actual transaction where Lacdan allegedly sold the shabu. The prosecution also presented forensic evidence confirming that the seized substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. However, crucial gaps in the handling of the evidence emerged during the trial.

Section 21 of RA 9165, before its amendment in 2014, and its implementing rules, detail the precise steps law enforcement must follow when handling seized drugs. These steps are designed to ensure the integrity of the evidence and prevent tampering or substitution. The law mandates that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. This requirement, known as the “three-witness rule,” is a cornerstone of the chain of custody.

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:

1. The apprehending 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.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the prosecution’s evidence and identified several critical breaches in the chain of custody. First, the inventory and photography of the seized drug were conducted only in the presence of a media representative, without the required DOJ representative and elected public official. This failure to comply with the three-witness rule raised serious concerns about the integrity of the evidence.

The Court also pointed out that the prosecution failed to adequately explain why the DOJ representative and elected public official were not present during the inventory. Prior jurisprudence, such as People v. Seguiente, People v. Rojas, and People v. Vistro, has consistently held that the absence of these witnesses, without justifiable explanation, casts doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The failure to meet this requirement becomes even more critical when the accused alleges a frame-up, as it underscores the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

Furthermore, the Court noted a gap in the second link of the chain of custody, which involves the turnover of the seized drug from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. The prosecution witnesses failed to testify to whom the seized items were turned over at the police station. PO2 Gallega testified that he remained in possession of the plastic sachet from the time it was seized, but it was unclear whether the same was turned over to the investigating officer at all. This lack of clarity created another break in the chain, further compromising the integrity of the evidence.

The third link, concerning the turnover of the drug from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist, also presented issues. PO2 Gallega testified that he handed the plastic sachet to the receiving clerk at the crime laboratory, but the clerk was never named or presented in court. This lack of information about the handling of the drug from receipt by the clerk until retrieval by the forensic chemist raised concerns about potential tampering or switching of the evidence.

Finally, the Court identified a breach in the fourth link, which pertains to the turnover and submission of the seized item from the forensic chemist to the court. While Forensic Chemist Huelgas testified that she returned the specimen to the evidence custodian and later retrieved it for presentation in court, there was no evidence presented regarding how the evidence custodian handled and stored the seized item. This gap in the chain of custody further eroded the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court, relying on the landmark case of Mallillin v. People, emphasized the importance of establishing every link in the chain of custody.

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

Because of the multiple violations of the chain of custody rule, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Shager Lacdan. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, creating reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized drug. This ruling underscores the importance of meticulous adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect individual liberties and ensure fair trials.

FAQs

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 identity of the evidence.
What is the three-witness rule in drug cases?	The three-witness rule requires that the physical inventory and photography of seized drugs be conducted in the presence of the accused, a media representative, and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or an elected public official.
Why is the chain of custody rule important in drug cases?	It prevents tampering, alteration, or substitution of evidence, ensuring that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, doubts arise about the identity and integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused.
What was the main reason for Shager Lacdan’s acquittal?	Lacdan was acquitted due to multiple breaches in the chain of custody, including the absence of required witnesses during inventory and gaps in the handling of the seized drug.
What is the significance of the Mallillin v. People case?	Mallillin v. People is a landmark case that emphasizes the importance of establishing every link in the chain of custody to ensure the admissibility of evidence.
What did the Supreme Court direct in this case?	The Supreme Court directed the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to immediately release Shager Lacdan from custody unless he was being held for other lawful causes.
What is the role of the forensic chemist in the chain of custody?	The forensic chemist examines the seized substance to determine its composition and provides expert testimony in court regarding the results of the examination.

This case serves as a critical reminder to law enforcement of the need for strict compliance with procedural safeguards in drug cases. The meticulous adherence to the chain of custody rule is not merely a technicality; it is a fundamental requirement to protect individual rights and ensure that justice is served. The absence of a complete and unbroken chain casts doubt on the very evidence used to convict, and as such, warrants an acquittal.

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: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. SHAGER LACDAN Y PARTO, G.R. No. 232161, August 14, 2019