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

In a significant ruling for drug cases, the Supreme Court acquitted Perigrina Cadungog of illegal sale of shabu because the police officers who arrested her failed to follow the mandatory chain of custody requirements under Republic Act No. 9165. The case of People v. Cadungog (G.R. No. 229926, April 3, 2019) reminds law enforcers and prosecutors that the integrity of seized drugs must be preserved at every step — otherwise, even a seemingly solid buy-bust case can collapse.

The Facts of the Case

On July 31, 2008, police officers in Malabuyoc, Cebu conducted a buy-bust operation against Cadungog after receiving information from a confidential informant that she was selling illegal drugs. PO1 Romeo Caacoy acted as the poseur buyer and purchased two plastic sachets of shabu worth ₱500.00 from the accused.

After the sale was consummated, the arresting team moved in, arrested Cadungog, and recovered the marked money. PO1 Caacoy marked the seized sachets with "PC-1" and "PC-2" at the police station — not at the place of arrest. An inventory receipt was prepared and signed by the arresting officers and three neighbors of the accused. However, no photographs were taken, and no representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, or an elected public official was present during the inventory.

Cadungog was convicted by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. She appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution had proven the identity and integrity of the seized drugs beyond reasonable doubt, given the police officers' failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 on the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs.

The Ruling: Strict Compliance Required

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Cadungog on reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the existence and identity of the illicit drug — the corpus delicti — must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 21 of RA 9165, as it stood in 2008, required the apprehending team to physically inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure, in the presence of:

• The accused or his representative or counsel
• A representative from the media
• A representative from the DOJ
• An elected public official

These witnesses were required to sign the inventory and receive copies. The Court noted that a buy-bust operation is a planned activity, so the team has ample time to bring these witnesses to the scene.

The Prosecution's Failures

The Court identified three critical lapses by the police:

First, the seized items were not marked immediately at the place of arrest. PO1 Caacoy marked the sachets only at the police station, without any explanation. Citing People v. Bartolini, the Court held that failure to mark drugs immediately after seizure casts doubt on the prosecution's evidence.

Second, no photographs were taken during the inventory, and the police offered no justification.

Third, the three required witnesses — DOJ representative, media representative, and elected public official — were absent during the inventory. The police's explanation that "the incident suddenly happened" was rejected, since the buy-bust was planned 11 days after surveillance began.

The Saving Clause Cannot Be Invoked Blindly

While the law allows non-compliance under "justifiable grounds," the prosecution bears the burden of proving both: (1) that justifiable grounds existed for the deviation, and (2) that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. In this case, the prosecution offered no adequate explanation.

The Court also reminded prosecutors of the guidelines from People v. Lim: arresting officers must state their compliance with Section 21 in their sworn statements, and if they deviated from the procedure, they must explain why and what steps they took to preserve the evidence.

Practical Takeaways

• Immediate marking is crucial. Seized drugs should be marked at the place of seizure, not later at the police station.
• Witnesses are mandatory. The presence of a DOJ representative, a media representative, and an elected public official during inventory is not a mere formality — it protects the integrity of the evidence.
• Document everything. Photographs of the inventory and signed receipts are essential. Unexplained gaps can be fatal to the prosecution's case.
• The presumption of regularity does not save a flawed case. When police fail to follow Section 21, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome the accused's presumption of innocence.
• Prosecutors must scrutinize compliance. Before filing charges, they should verify that the arresting officers have explained any deviations from the chain of custody rules.

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