Compromised Evidence Safeguarding Drug Case Integrity Through Chain Of Custody

The Supreme Court has once again underscored that winning the war on drugs cannot come at the cost of due process. In Anyayahan v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 229787, June 20, 2018), the Court acquitted an accused of illegal possession of dangerous drugs because the police failed to follow the mandatory chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The decision is a stern reminder that the integrity of seized evidence is just as important as the arrest itself.

The Facts of the Case

In January 2013, police officers in Marikina City conducted a buy-bust operation against Ricky Anyayahan, who was suspected of selling shabu. The poseur-buyer handed marked money to Anyayahan, who then gave him one plastic sachet of suspected shabu. A second sachet was recovered from Anyayahan's pocket upon arrest. The items were marked, photographed, and inventoried, and later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The trial court convicted Anyayahan of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and acquitted him.

The Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution had preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, as required by the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

The Chain of Custody Rule

Under Section 21, as it stood before its amendment by RA 10640, the apprehending team must, immediately after seizure, conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of:

• the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel;
• a representative from the media;
• a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); and
• any elected public official.

These witnesses must sign the inventory and receive copies. The seized drugs must also be turned over to the crime laboratory within 24 hours.

The Supreme Court has long held that the dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti of the crime. Its identity must be established with moral certainty, which requires an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court.

The Breach in This Case

The prosecution failed to show that the required witnesses were present during the inventory and photography. The police officer admitted that he finished the inventory first and only later went to the Barangay Hall to secure the signatures of a barangay official and a media representative. He even waited about an hour for them to arrive. No DOJ representative was present at all.

The photographs of the seized items were likewise taken at the crime scene and at the Barangay Hall, before the witnesses had arrived. The Supreme Court held that merely producing an inventory, without the required personalities physically witnessing the proceeding, does not amount to compliance with the law.

Non-Compliance Must Be Justified

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance with Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions. The law allows non-compliance if the prosecution proves: (a) there was a justifiable ground for the deviation, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

But in this case, the police offered no explanation for their lapses. As the Court emphasized in People v. De Guzman, the justifiable ground must be proven as a fact — the Court cannot presume that it exists. Since no earnest effort to comply was shown, the breach was unjustified, and the integrity of the evidence was compromised.

Practical Takeaways

• Chain of custody is substantive law. The procedure in Section 21 is not a mere technicality. Police officers must comply with it, and prosecutors must prove compliance.
• Witnesses must actually be present. Signatures obtained after the fact, or from witnesses who did not witness the inventory, do not cure the defect.
• Non-compliance requires justification. If the police deviate from the procedure, the prosecution must explain why and show that the evidence remained intact.
• Appellate courts may raise the issue on their own. Even if the accused did not raise the chain of custody issue below, the appellate court may examine the records and acquit if the procedure was breached without justification.
• The Bill of Rights protects everyone. Even those accused of drug offenses are entitled to the protection of the Constitution. Law enforcement efforts cannot justify disregarding individual liberty.

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