Acquittal Due to Chain of Custody Breach: Safeguarding Rights in Drug Cases

The Supreme Court, in People v. Asaytuno, Jr. (G.R. No. 245972, December 2, 2019), acquitted two accused individuals charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The ruling emphasizes that law enforcers' failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody requirements under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, creates reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs—the very corpus delicti or body of the offense. When such doubt exists, an acquittal must follow.

The Facts of the Case

In February 2015, police officers in Makati City conducted a buy-bust operation against Martin and Renato Asaytunao, who were allegedly selling shabu. The poseur-buyer handed marked money to Renato, while Martin allegedly gave him one plastic sachet of shabu. After the arrest, the officers recovered the marked bill and two more sachets from Martin.

However, instead of marking the seized sachets immediately at the place of arrest, the officers brought the accused and the evidence to the barangay hall. There, an inventory was conducted in the presence of only one elected barangay official. No representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service was present. The police officers claimed they transferred because people had gathered around the area.

The Issue

The central issue was whether the prosecution had proven the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly whether the chain of custody over the seized drugs was properly established.

The Ruling: Strict Compliance is Required

The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted both accused. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs due to several fatal violations of Section 21, RA 9165.

1. Marking must be done immediately upon confiscation. The Court reiterated that marking the seized items is the starting point of the custodial link. It must be done in the presence of the accused immediately upon seizure. In this case, the officers pocketed the sachet and only marked it later at the barangay hall, creating an unaccounted gap in the chain. The Court noted that keeping narcotics in a police officer's pocket is a reckless and dubious way of ensuring the integrity of the items, citing People v. Dela Cruz for the proposition that such handling raises serious doubts about the evidence.

2. Required third-party witnesses must be present during apprehension. Since the incident occurred after RA 10640 amended Section 21 in 2014, the presence of two witnesses—an elected official and a media or National Prosecution Service representative—was mandatory. Citing People v. Tomawis, the Court stressed that these witnesses must be present not only during inventory but at the time of the warrantless arrest itself. The buy-bust team's failure to bring them, despite having time to plan the operation, was inexcusable.

3. No justifiable grounds for non-compliance. While non-compliance may be excused under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must prove both the justification and that the evidence's integrity was preserved. Here, the officers' excuses—waiting only one minute for an official, people gathering, and the station being far—were deemed perfunctory and insufficient. The Court noted that one officer was not even aware of the rule on where inventory should be conducted.

Why This Matters

The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot save a prosecution marred by non-compliance. Where police officers take liberties with legal requirements, their testimony becomes unreliable. This is especially true in cases involving minuscule amounts of drugs, where the risk of planting or tampering is high.

Practical Takeaways

• Marking is critical. Police must mark seized drugs immediately upon confiscation, in the presence of the accused. Any delay creates a fatal gap in the chain of custody.
• Witnesses must be present from the start. The required third-party witnesses (elected official and media or DOJ/NPS representative) must be secured even before the buy-bust operation, not called in afterward.
• Justifiable grounds must be proven. Non-compliance with Section 21 is not automatically excused. The prosecution must specifically prove the justification and show positive steps taken to preserve the evidence's integrity.
• Presumption of regularity is not a shield. It cannot prevail where there is manifest non-compliance with the law and allegations of wrongdoing against the apprehending officers.
• For the accused, the burden is on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove its case on its own merits, not rely on the weakness of the defense.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.