Chain of Custody Gaps and Missing Witnesses Lead to Acquittal in Drug Case

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed a strict rule in drug cases: when police fail to secure the required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs, and cannot explain why, the accused must be acquitted. In People v. Edangalino (G.R. No. 235110, January 8, 2020), the Court overturned a conviction for illegal possession of shabu because the prosecution's gaps in the chain of custody cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized item — the very corpus delicti of the offense.

The case is a reminder that the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 are not mere formalities. They exist to protect the accused from planting of evidence and frame-ups.

The Facts of the Case

On September 8, 2011, police conducted a buy-bust operation against a certain "Amboy" in Marikina City. PO1 Rey Lambino acted as the poseur-buyer. When the suspect, later identified as Jesus Edangalino, attempted to flee, he was arrested. A plastic sachet of suspected shabu was recovered and marked at the place of arrest.

The police conducted the physical inventory and photographing of the seized item at the scene. However, no representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), or any elected public official was present to witness these procedures. The certificate of inventory was signed only by the accused.

Edangalino was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs). The Regional Trial Court convicted him, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Both courts relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of police duty.

The Issue

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction despite the prosecution's failure to establish the identity and integrity of the alleged confiscated drugs.

The Ruling: Acquittal

The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted Edangalino. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court emphasized that the dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti of the offense. Its identity must be established beyond doubt because illegal drugs are indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering or substitution. The evidence must show that the drug presented in court is the same drug actually recovered from the accused.

Under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of: (1) the accused or his representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media; (3) a representative from the DOJ; and (4) any elected public official.

In this case, PO1 Lambino admitted in cross-examination that no media representative, DOJ representative, or elected public official was present during the marking, inventory, and photographing. His testimony also failed to provide any justifiable ground for the non-compliance.

While the Court acknowledged that non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically render the seizure void, the prosecution must prove two things: (a) there was a justifiable ground for non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The justifiable ground must be proven as a fact — the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

The Court also rejected the lower courts' reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. As the Court explained, the lapses in procedure are themselves affirmative proofs of irregularity. The presumption of regularity cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

Practical Takeaways

• Witnesses are mandatory. In drug cases, the physical inventory and photographing of seized items must be done in the presence of the accused (or his representative or counsel), a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
• Justifiable grounds must be proven. If the required witnesses are absent, the prosecution must present evidence explaining why. A mere claim that witnesses were "not available" is not enough.
• The chain of custody is critical. The prosecution must show that the drug presented in court is the same drug seized from the accused. Any substantial gap in the chain can lead to acquittal.
• Presumption of regularity is not automatic. When police fail to follow Section 21, the presumption of regularity cannot be used to save the prosecution's case.
• For accused persons. If the police failed to comply with Section 21 and cannot justify it, the defense should raise this as a ground for acquittal.

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