Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: Why Missing Witnesses Can Overturn a Conviction

In a buy-bust operation, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused sold illegal drugs but also that the exact drugs seized are the same ones presented in court. This is known as the chain of custody rule. In People v. Feriol (G.R. No. 232154, August 20, 2018), the Supreme Court overturned a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs because the police failed to explain why no representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media was present during the inventory of the seized drugs. The case is a reminder that strict compliance with the rules on evidence custody is not a mere technicality—it is a substantive requirement that protects the accused from evidence switching or planting.

The Facts of the Case

On January 28, 2014, police officers in Makati City conducted a buy-bust operation against Benjamin Feriol y Perez. A poseur-buyer handed Feriol P500 in marked money, and Feriol gave him a small plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. After the arrest, the buy-bust team brought Feriol and the seized item to the barangay hall, where an inventory and photography were conducted. The inventory was done in the presence of Feriol and a barangay kagawad. However, no representative from the DOJ or the media was present.

The seized substance later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. Feriol was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The Regional Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

The Issue

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Feriol's conviction. The Court ruled that it did not.

The Chain of Custody Rule Under Section 21

To convict a person of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the item and the payment. The dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti—the body of the crime. Thus, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody over the drug from the moment of seizure until its presentation in court. This ensures that the evidence has not been switched, planted, or contaminated.

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as it stood before its amendment by RA 10640, required the apprehending team to conduct a physical 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; and
• any elected public official.

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance may not always be possible under field conditions. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 allow for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. However, the prosecution must explain the reasons for the lapse. As the Court emphasized, the justifiable ground must be proven as a fact—the Court cannot presume what those grounds are or that they even exist.

The Prosecution's Failure to Explain

In Feriol's case, the inventory and photography were conducted in the presence of the accused and an elected public official. But the records showed no attempt to secure the presence of DOJ and media representatives. The apprehending officers did not acknowledge or explain this lapse. There was no showing that they even tried to contact these witnesses.

The Supreme Court stressed that the procedure in Section 21 is a matter of substantive law, not a simple procedural technicality. The State has a positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody, regardless of whether the defense raises the issue in the trial court. If no justifiable reason exists for the deviation, the appellate court must acquit the accused.

Because the prosecution failed to provide any justification for the missing witnesses, the Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug had been compromised. Feriol was acquitted.

Practical Takeaways

• Presence of witnesses matters. In drug cases, the inventory must be conducted in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative. Missing any of these witnesses without explanation can be fatal to the prosecution's case.
• The prosecution must explain lapses. If the police fail to strictly comply with Section 21, the prosecution must present evidence of a justifiable ground. Silence or a bare assertion of "security reasons" is not enough.
• Non-compliance is not automatically fatal. The saving clause in the law allows the case to proceed if the integrity of the evidence is preserved. But the burden is on the prosecution to prove both the justification and the preservation.
• The issue can be raised on appeal. Even if the defense does not question the chain of custody during trial, the appellate court may examine the records on its own and acquit if the procedure was not followed.
• For law enforcement: Document every step. Attempt to secure all required witnesses, and if they cannot be present, record the efforts made and the reasons for their absence.

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