Acquittal in Drug Case: When Police Lapses in Chain of Custody Lead to Freedom

The Supreme Court has once again underscored the strict requirements of the chain of custody rule in drug cases, this time acquitting an accused after police officers failed to secure the presence of required witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs. In Grefaldo v. People (G.R. No. 246362, November 11, 2019), the Court reversed the convictions of the lower courts and ordered the release of petitioner Melanie Grefaldo y De Leon, who had been found guilty of illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.

The ruling is a significant reminder that procedural lapses in handling seized drugs can be fatal to the prosecution's case, regardless of the accused's guilt or innocence.

The Facts of the Case

On March 22, 2012, police officers from the Antipolo City Police went to La Colina Subdivision to investigate reports of illegal gambling. Upon arriving, they encountered Grefaldo acting suspiciously, as if accepting bets for jueteng. As they approached her, two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance allegedly fell from her right pocket. The officers introduced themselves, arrested her, and seized the sachets.

The officers brought Grefaldo to the police station, where they photographed and inventoried the seized items. The contents later tested positive for shabu. Grefaldo denied the charge, claiming she was forcibly taken by several men and detained without knowing the charges against her until inquest proceedings.

The Regional Trial Court found her guilty and sentenced her to 12 years and one day to 14 years, eight months, and one day, plus a fine of P300,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction. Grefaldo then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

The Issue: Compliance with the Chain of Custody Rule

The central issue was whether the police officers' failure to comply with the witness requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165 warranted Grefaldo's acquittal.

Section 21 requires that the physical inventory and photography of seized drugs be conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, and certain witnesses: a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. (After the amendment by RA 10640 in 2014, the requirement became an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.)

The purpose of these witnesses is to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

The Ruling: Lapses Without Justification Are Fatal

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Grefaldo. The Court found that the police officers failed to comply with the witness requirement—no elected public official, DOJ representative, or media representative was present during the inventory and photography.

While the law allows for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must prove two things: (1) there was a justifiable reason for the non-compliance, and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

The officers offered a sworn written explanation citing "lack of material time" to secure the witnesses. However, the Court found this untenable. On cross-examination, the officers admitted they did not even attempt to contact the required witnesses and had no idea whom to contact. One officer even admitted that his sworn explanation was wrong.

The Court emphasized that mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. The officers failed to provide any plausible explanation why time constraints impaired their ability to secure witnesses within the period allowed under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Importance of the Corpus Delicti

The Court reiterated that in drug cases, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty because the drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. The prosecution must account for each link of the chain of custody—from seizure to presentation in court.

Because the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised due to the unjustified procedural lapses, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove Grefaldo's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She was acquitted and ordered immediately released.

Practical Takeaways

• Strict compliance is substantive law. The chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165 is not merely a procedural technicality but a matter of substantive law designed to protect against police abuses.
• Justifiable grounds must be proven as fact. The prosecution cannot presume the existence of justifiable grounds for non-compliance. It must present evidence of actual efforts to secure witnesses.
• "Lack of material time" is not enough. Police officers must show genuine and sufficient efforts to contact required witnesses. Ignorance of whom to contact is not an acceptable excuse.
• The burden is on the prosecution. Even if the defense does not raise the issue at trial, the prosecution has a positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody.
• Consequences are severe. Failure to properly preserve the integrity of seized drugs can result in an acquittal, even when the accused may appear guilty.

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