Acquittal for Broken Drug Chain of Custody: Grefaldo v. People Explained

The Supreme Court's decision in Grefaldo v. People (G.R. No. 246362, November 11, 2019) is a clear reminder that in drug cases, the procedure for handling seized evidence is as important as the evidence itself. When police fail to follow the chain of custody rules under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the accused may be acquitted even if the drugs were allegedly found on them. This ruling protects the integrity of evidence and guards against police abuse.

The Facts of the Case

On the morning of March 22, 2012, police officers in Antipolo City were investigating reports of illegal gambling. They encountered Melanie Grefaldo, who was acting suspiciously. The officers claimed that two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, later confirmed to be shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride), fell from her pocket. She was arrested and charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165.

Grefaldo denied the charge, claiming she was forcibly taken by men on motorcycles and detained at the police station. The Regional Trial Court convicted her, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. She then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Core Issue: The Chain of Custody

The central issue was whether the police properly complied with the chain of custody requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165. This rule requires that seized drugs be marked, inventoried, and photographed immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused (or their representative) and certain required witnesses.

At the time of the arrest, the law required the presence of three witnesses: a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent the switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

The Ruling: Compliance Is Substantive Law

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Grefaldo, reversing her conviction. The Court emphasized that the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty because the drug itself is the corpus delicti—the body of the crime. If the prosecution cannot prove the drug's integrity, the evidence is insufficient for conviction.

The Court found that the inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted without any of the three required witnesses. While the police officers submitted a sworn explanation citing "lack of material time," the Court found this unacceptable.

Why the Police Explanation Failed

The Court explained that non-compliance with the witness requirement may be excused only if the prosecution proves 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 prosecution must also show that the police exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the witnesses' presence.

In this case, the officers' testimony revealed they did not even attempt to contact the required witnesses. One officer admitted he had no idea whom to contact from the DOJ, and that it was supposedly the investigator's task to coordinate. Another officer could not explain why the explanation was required at all. The Court stressed that "mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance."

The Court also cited People v. Lim (G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018), which listed acceptable reasons for non-compliance, such as the arrest occurring in a remote area, threats to witness safety, or earnest efforts that proved futile due to time constraints. None of these applied here.

Practical Takeaways

• Police must strictly follow Section 21 of RA 9165. The chain of custody rule is not a mere technicality but a matter of substantive law designed to prevent abuses.
• "Lack of material time" is not enough. Police must show they actually tried to secure the required witnesses and explain why those efforts failed.
• The prosecution has a positive duty. Even if the defense does not raise the issue at trial, the State must account for any lapses in the chain of custody on appeal.
• The accused benefits from procedural lapses. When the integrity of the seized drugs is compromised, the accused may be acquitted, as happened in this case.
• For lawyers and litigants: Always examine the chain of custody in drug cases—the presence of witnesses, the timing of marking and inventory, and the explanations for any deviations can determine the outcome.

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