Compromised Evidence Acquittal in Drug Cases Due to Procedural Lapses in Chain of Custody

The Supreme Court has reminded law enforcers that the chain of custody rule in drug cases is not a mere technicality—it is a safeguard that protects the integrity of the evidence and the rights of the accused. In People v. Salonga (G.R. No. 186390, October 2, 2009), the Court reversed a conviction for illegal drug selling because the police committed serious procedural lapses in handling the seized shabu. The case illustrates how a compromised chain of custody can lead to an acquittal, even when the accused's defense appears weak.

The Facts of the Case

Rosemarie Salonga was charged with selling and possessing shabu in Quezon City on July 31, 2002. The prosecution's lone witness, PO1 Teresita Reyes, testified that a buy-bust operation was conducted against a certain "alias Marie," who turned out to be Salonga. PO1 Reyes acted as the poseur-buyer and handed marked money to Salonga, who allegedly gave her two plastic sachets of shabu in return.

After the arrest, PO1 Reyes marked the two sachets she received with the initials "TBR-RRS." The other two sachets were recovered by SPO2 Nebres, who later died before trial. The trial court acquitted Salonga on the possession charge because the officer who recovered the other sachets could not testify. However, it convicted her on the selling charge, relying on PO1 Reyes' uncorroborated testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

The Issue: Was the Chain of Custody Properly Observed?

The Supreme Court focused on whether the prosecution had adequately established the chain of custody of the seized drugs. Under Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, the apprehending team must, immediately after seizure, physically inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or her representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.

The records showed multiple violations of this rule. No inventory was made because, as PO1 Reyes testified, "our team leader did not bother to make an inventory." No photographs were taken—at one hearing, she said the photographer was absent; at another, she said the camera was broken. The coordination report with PDEA could not be produced because the team leader had died.

The Ruling: Acquittal on Ground of Reasonable Doubt

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Salonga and acquitted her. The Court noted that the presumption of regularity in favor of police officers is destroyed when their performance of duties is tainted with irregularities. Here, the prosecution failed to offer any justifiable ground for the non-compliance with Section 21.

The Court cited People v. Partoza (G.R. No. 182418, May 8, 2009), where the police similarly failed to mark, inventory, and photograph the seized drugs. While non-compliance with Section 21 is not automatically fatal if there is a justifiable ground and the integrity of the evidence is preserved, those conditions were not met in this case.

The Court also emphasized that the corpus delicti—the prohibited drug itself—must be proven to be the very same substance offered in court. With the chain of custody broken, the Court could not be certain that the identity of the seized drugs was intact. The prosecution therefore failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the weakness of the defense became immaterial.

Practical Takeaways

• Mark evidence immediately at the scene. The first link in the chain of custody is crucial. Failure to mark the seized items right after seizure raises doubts about their identity.
• Inventory and photograph without delay. These are mandatory requirements under RA 9165. The absence of a photographer or a broken camera is not a valid excuse unless properly explained.
• Secure the presence of required witnesses. The inventory must be done in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. Their signatures are part of the safeguard.
• Preserve the integrity of the evidence. Even if there is a lapse, the prosecution must show that the evidentiary value of the drugs was properly preserved. Contradictory excuses will not suffice.
• The presumption of regularity is not absolute. Police officers are presumed to perform their duties regularly, but this presumption is rebutted by unexplained procedural lapses.

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