Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: Safeguarding Evidence and Ensuring Fair Trials

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted two accused individuals charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs due to the police's failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule under Republic Act No. 9165. The case of People v. Cordova and Eguiso (G.R. No. 231130, July 9, 2018) serves as a crucial reminder that the integrity of seized evidence is paramount in drug cases, and procedural lapses can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

The Case at Hand

Gerald Tamayo Cordova and Marcial Dayon Eguiso were arrested during a buy-bust operation in Bacolod City on April 8, 2005. Cordova was charged with illegal sale of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) and illegal possession of the same drug, while Eguiso was charged with illegal possession. The Regional Trial Court convicted both, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

The Chain of Custody Rule

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as it stood at the time of the offense, required the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure. This had to be done in the presence of the accused or their representative, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. The seized drugs also had to be turned over to the crime laboratory within 24 hours.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court.

Procedural Lapses That Led to Acquittal

The Court identified several unjustified deviations from the prescribed procedure:

First, Eguiso was not present during the required photography of the seized items. When asked why, the police officer merely stated that "maybe our office made an oversight." The Court ruled that this tentative excuse could not be considered a justifiable reason for non-compliance.

Second, the required witnesses from the media and the DOJ were absent during the inventory and photography. The records showed no evidence that the police even attempted to contact these witnesses, despite buy-bust operations being typically planned in advance.

Third, the seized items were not delivered to the crime laboratory until three days after the arrest. The items were stored in the arresting officer's locker, and the prosecution failed to explain what security measures were employed to preserve the evidence during this period.

The Saving Clause and Its Limits

While the law provides a saving clause that allows non-compliance with Section 21 under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must prove two things: (1) there was a justifiable ground for non-compliance, and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The Court emphasized that justifiable grounds cannot be presumed—they must be proven as fact.

In this case, the prosecution failed to discharge this burden. The police officer's explanation that no chemist was available on a Friday afternoon was not enough, especially since the crime laboratory had an arrangement for weekend apprehensions that was not followed.

Practical Takeaways

• Strict compliance matters: Police officers must adhere to the chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165. Deviations require justifiable grounds that must be proven, not merely claimed.

• Witnesses are essential: The presence of required witnesses—media, DOJ, and elected officials—during inventory and photography protects against planting or tampering of evidence. Their absence must be adequately explained.

• Timely delivery is crucial: Seized drugs should be delivered to the crime laboratory within 24 hours. Unexplained delays expose evidence to risks of tampering or alteration.

• Presumption of regularity is not enough: Courts cannot rely solely on the presumption that police officers regularly performed their duties when there are affirmative proofs of procedural lapses.

• For the accused and their counsel: In drug cases, carefully examine how the seized items were handled from seizure to presentation in court. Gaps in the chain of custody can be a strong defense.

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