Chain of Custody Safeguarding Drug Evidence in Philippine Law

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Dioscoro Comoso y Turemutsa of illegal drug sale charges because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized marijuana. The case, People v. Turemutsa (G.R. No. 227497, April 10, 2019), underscores a strict rule: when police mishandle drug evidence, the accused walks free.

The Buy-Bust Operation

On March 26, 2005, police officers in Puerto Princesa City conducted a buy-bust operation against a man identified as "Coro." A civilian asset acted as the poseur-buyer. After the exchange of P400 for a plastic sachet of dried marijuana, the asset removed his hat as a pre-arranged signal. Officers arrested Comoso, recovered the sachet, buy-bust money, a used marijuana stick, and a lighter.

The arresting officer marked the sachet and money with his initials "FJA." He later prepared an inventory of confiscated items. However, the seized drugs were only delivered to the forensic chemist on April 8, 2005—roughly two weeks after the operation.

The Chain of Custody Rule

Under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as amended by RA 10640, police must conduct a physical inventory and photograph seized drugs immediately after confiscation. This must be done in the presence of the accused or their representative, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or media. The seized items must also be submitted to the forensic laboratory within 24 hours.

The chain of custody has four links: (1) seizure and marking by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover to the forensic chemist; and (4) turnover to the court.

Gaps in the Prosecution's Case

The Court found several fatal lapses. First, it was unclear whether the inventory was conducted in the accused's presence or signed by him. Second, there was no evidence that the required witnesses—an elected official and a media or prosecution service representative—were present. Third, the arresting officer did not clearly testify about turning over the items to an investigating officer. Fourth, the delay of about two weeks before the drugs reached the forensic chemist far exceeded the 24-hour requirement, with no explanation offered.

The prosecution argued that the presumption of regularity in police performance should apply. The Court rejected this, citing People v. Kamad: the presumption cannot arise when the official act is irregular on its face.

Why Strict Compliance Matters

The Court emphasized that narcotics are easily mistaken for everyday objects and can be substituted, tampered with, or planted. As noted in Mallillin v. People, a more stringent standard applies to drug evidence than to readily identifiable objects. The prosecution cannot rely on "broad justifications and sweeping guarantees" that evidence integrity was preserved. It must show positive steps taken to ensure preservation.

Practical Takeaways

• Compliance is mandatory. Police must strictly follow Section 21 of RA 9165, including immediate inventory, photography, and the presence of required witnesses.
• Documentation matters. Every transfer of custody must be recorded with the identity and signature of the person holding the drugs, plus dates and times.
• Unjustified delay is fatal. Submitting drugs to the forensic lab beyond 24 hours, without explanation, creates reasonable doubt.
• Presumption of regularity is not a shield. It applies only when police follow standard procedures; flagrant lapses defeat it.
• For the accused, gaps mean acquittal. When the identity of the corpus delicti is compromised, the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

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