Chain of Custody Safeguarding Drug Evidence Integrity in Philippine Law

The Supreme Court has once again underscored that in drug cases, the prosecution must prove not only the accused’s guilt but also the unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs. In People v. Dela Torre (G.R. No. 238519, June 26, 2019), the Court acquitted an accused because police officers failed to comply with the mandatory witness and marking requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The ruling is a reminder that procedural lapses, when left unexplained, can compromise the integrity of the evidence and result in an acquittal.

The Case: A Buy-Bust Operation in Makati

On March 14, 2015, police officers conducted an anti-narcotics operation in Barangay Palanan, Makati City. A poseur-buyer was given a P1,000 bill to purchase shabu from a certain alias "Zandra," later identified as Desiree Dela Torre. After the sale, the police arrested her and recovered two more plastic sachets of suspected shabu from her pocket.

The inventory and marking of the seized items were done at the barangay hall, not at the place of arrest. Only one witness—a barangay kagawad—was present during the inventory. No representative from the media or the Department of Justice (DOJ) attended. The police did not explain why.

The accused was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. The trial court convicted her, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and acquitted her.

The Issue: Did the Prosecution Establish an Unbroken Chain of Custody?

The central issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the chain of custody over the seized drugs. The Court ruled that it did not.

To convict in drug cases, the prosecution must establish the identity of the prohibited drug with moral certainty. The drug itself is the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, the prosecution must account for every link in the chain of custody—from seizure, to marking, to turnover to the investigating officer, to submission to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.

The Rule: Strict Compliance with Section 21, RA 9165

Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, requires that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of:

• the accused or his/her representative or counsel;
• an elected public official; and
• a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.

These witnesses must sign the inventory and receive a copy. The inventory must be conducted at the place of arrest, or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, whichever is practicable.

Non-compliance does not automatically render the seizure void, but only if the prosecution proves (1) a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (2) that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The Court stressed that the prosecution cannot simply presume these grounds exist—they must be proven as facts.

Why the Conviction Failed

In this case, the arresting officers committed unjustified deviations:

• Only one witness was present during the inventory—the barangay kagawad. No DOJ or media representative attended, and there was no showing that the police even attempted to contact them.
• The marking and inventory were not done immediately at the place of arrest. They were done at the barangay hall, one to two hours later.
• The prosecution offered no explanation for these lapses. It failed to present any justifiable ground for the deviations.

The Court emphasized that the presence of the required witnesses and the immediate marking of the drugs cannot be dismissed as a mere procedural technicality. These safeguards prevent the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. Where the quantity of drugs seized is small, stricter compliance is required because such evidence is highly susceptible to tampering.

Practical Takeaways

• The chain of custody is a substantive requirement, not a mere formality. The prosecution must prove each link from seizure to court presentation.
• Marking and inventory must be done immediately after seizure, at the place of arrest or the nearest police station, in the presence of the required witnesses.
• The presence of an elected official alone is insufficient. The law requires an elected public official and a representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service.
• Any deviation from Section 21 must be explained and proven. The police must state the justifiable ground in their sworn affidavit and show the steps taken to preserve the integrity of the evidence.
• When in doubt, the court must acquit. If the integrity of the seized drugs 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.