Compromised Evidence Acquittal Due to Unjustified Deviations in Drug Chain of Custody

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted an accused charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs because the police failed to justify their non-compliance with the mandatory chain of custody requirements under Republic Act No. 9165. The case of People v. Feriol (G.R. No. 232154, August 20, 2018) underscores that the prosecution bears the positive duty to prove compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, or to explain any deviations, lest the integrity of the seized drugs be compromised and the conviction overturned.

The Facts of the Case

Benjamin Feriol y Perez was charged with illegal sale of shabu after a buy-bust operation in Makati City on January 28, 2014. A poseur-buyer purchased 0.23 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride from Feriol for P500. After the arrest, the police brought Feriol and the seized items to the barangay hall, where an inventory and photography were conducted in the presence of Feriol and a barangay kagawad. Notably, no representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the media was present during the inventory.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Feriol, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that the chain of custody had not been broken and that Feriol failed to prove tampering or bad faith on the part of the police.

The Issue

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Feriol's conviction despite the apprehending officers' failure to comply with the chain of custody rule.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Feriol. The Court held that the police committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

Under the law, immediately after seizure, the apprehending team must 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, while the inventory was conducted in the presence of Feriol and an elected public official, no DOJ or media representative was present.

The Court emphasized that while strict compliance may not always be possible under varied field conditions, the prosecution must satisfactorily prove two things: (a) that there was a justifiable ground for non-compliance, and (b) that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. Importantly, the justifiable ground must be proven as a fact — the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

In this case, the police officers did not even attempt to contact or secure the presence of DOJ and media representatives. They also failed to acknowledge or explain their lapse. Because the prosecution offered no justification for the deviation, the Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been compromised.

The Saving Clause and the Prosecution's Burden

The Court clarified that non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically render the seizure void. The saving clause in the law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations allows for exceptions, but only when the prosecution explains the reasons behind the procedural lapses and shows that the evidence's integrity was preserved.

The Court stressed that Section 21 is a matter of substantive law, not a mere procedural technicality. The State retains the 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 reasons exist, the appellate court has a bounden duty to acquit the accused.

Practical Takeaways

• The chain of custody rule is mandatory. Police must conduct inventory and photography of seized drugs in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the DOJ and media.
• Deviations require justification. Non-compliance is excusable only if the prosecution proves a justifiable ground and shows that the drugs' integrity was preserved. The ground must be proven as a fact, not presumed.
• The prosecution bears the burden. Prosecutors must proactively acknowledge and justify any deviations during trial. Failure to do so can result in acquittal, even if the issue is raised only on appeal.
• Substantive law, not technicality. Courts will not hesitate to overturn convictions when the chain of custody is compromised, as the drug itself forms the corpus delicti of the crime.
• For the defense, scrutinize the chain. Defense counsel should examine whether all required witnesses were present during inventory and whether any deviations were properly explained.

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