Chain of Custody Doubt in Drug Cases Leads to Acquittal

The Supreme Court has acquitted an accused in a drug case after finding that the prosecution failed to prove every link in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs. In People v. Hernandez (G.R. No. 258077, June 15, 2022), the Court emphasized that when the integrity of the seized drugs is compromised, the accused must be acquitted, as the drugs are the very corpus delicti—the body of the crime—in drug cases.

The case is a reminder that in drug prosecutions, the prosecution must not only prove that the accused sold or possessed illegal drugs, but must also account for the drugs from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court.

What Happened in This Case

Donato Hernandez was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Police officers conducted a buy-bust operation in Calamba City, Laguna, where a poseur-buyer purchased a sachet of suspected shabu from Hernandez. A search of a black pouch yielded four more sachets.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Hernandez and sentenced him to life imprisonment for each offense. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Hernandez appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Central Issue: The Chain of Custody Rule

The issue was whether Hernandez's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court ruled that it was not.

The chain of custody rule requires the prosecution to account for the seized drugs through four links:

1. Seizure and marking of the drugs by the apprehending officer
2. Turnover of the drugs to the investigating officer
3. Turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination
4. Turnover and submission of the drugs from the forensic chemist to the court

The Court found that the first two links were substantially complied with. The marking was done immediately after seizure, and although the police officer did not follow the exact markings prescribed in the PNP Manual, the initials used still made the items distinct. The movement of the seized items was also recorded, and the officer who seized them kept custody until submission to the crime laboratory.

Where the Prosecution Failed

The prosecution failed on the third and fourth links.

Third link: The police officer who received the drugs at the crime laboratory was not presented in court. This person could have testified on the condition of the drugs when received and the precautions taken to prevent contamination or substitution. Without this testimony, the Court could not rule out the possibility that the drugs were changed or tampered with.

Fourth link: The forensic chemist's testimony was dispensed with through a stipulation. However, the stipulation only covered her findings that the specimens tested positive for shabu. It did not cover how she handled the specimens from receipt until presentation in court, who had custody after the examination, or how the drugs were stored and safeguarded.

Because of these gaps, the Court held that it was not convincingly shown that the sachets presented in court were the same sachets recovered from Hernandez. The presumption of regularity in the performance of police duties could not prevail over the presumption of innocence.

Practical Takeaways

• Every link matters. In drug cases, the prosecution must present witnesses who can account for the drugs at each stage of custody. Missing even one link can lead to acquittal.
• Stipulations must be complete. When the defense agrees to dispense with a witness's testimony, the stipulation must cover all relevant details, including how the evidence was handled and stored.
• Receiving officers must testify. The person who receives the drugs at the crime laboratory should be presented to confirm the condition of the items upon receipt.
• Presumption of regularity is not automatic. It cannot overcome a demonstrated flaw in the chain of custody.
• For accused persons. If the prosecution's evidence shows gaps in the handling of seized drugs, this can be a strong ground for acquittal.

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