Chain of Custody Breaches in Drug Cases: When Police Lapses Lead to Acquittal

The Supreme Court, in People v. De Leon (G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018), acquitted an accused charged with illegal sale of drugs after finding that police officers committed serious, unjustified lapses in handling the seized evidence. The case is a powerful reminder that in drug offenses, the prosecution's case stands or falls on the integrity of the confiscated item—the corpus delicti—and that police must strictly follow the chain of custody rules under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

The Facts of the Case

On May 31, 2009, police operatives in Parañaque City conducted a buy-bust operation against Nova De Leon after an informant reported her alleged drug activities. SPO1 Lumabao acted as the poseur-buyer, handing ₱200 to the accused in exchange for one plastic sachet of suspected shabu weighing 0.01 gram. After the arrest, the team brought De Leon to the Barangay Hall of Tambo, where the inventory was conducted in the presence of only a barangay tanod. No representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), or an elected public official was present. The police also failed to mark the seized sachet at the place of arrest, explaining that it was raining.

The Regional Trial Court convicted De Leon, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed.

The Issue

The central issue was whether the prosecution proved De Leon's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly whether the police complied with Section 21 of RA 9165 to preserve the integrity of the seized drug.

The Ruling: Strict Compliance with Section 21

The Court ruled that the police failed to comply with Section 21 in several critical respects:

First, the inventory and photographing should be done immediately after seizure, at the place of apprehension, or at the nearest police station if not practicable. A barangay hall is not among the alternative places allowed by the Implementing Rules and Regulations. The police did not even acknowledge this lapse.

Second, the seized item was not marked immediately upon seizure. Marking is the starting point of the custodial link; it prevents switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. The police officer's excuse that it was raining was "flimsy," especially since only one sachet was recovered and the entire operation took just about ten minutes.

Third, the mandatory three-witness rule was violated. Section 21 requires the physical inventory to be conducted in the presence of (a) the accused or her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ. Here, only a barangay tanod witnessed the inventory. The Court emphasized that the presence of these witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation is essential to insulate against the police practice of planting evidence.

Presumption of Regularity Cannot Overcome Presumption of Innocence

The Court also rejected the lower courts' reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The lapses themselves were "affirmative proofs of irregularity." The presumption of regularity cannot defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent. As the Court warned, a mere rule of evidence cannot subordinate the constitutional guarantee of innocence.

Practical Takeaways

• Chain of custody is the heart of drug cases. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance seized from the accused is exactly the same substance offered in court. Every link must be accounted for.
• Mark items immediately. Seized drugs must be marked at the place of arrest or as soon as practicable. Delayed marking, without a justifiable reason, casts doubt on the authenticity of the evidence.
• Secure the three witnesses. The presence of an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative during the inventory is mandatory. Their absence must be justified with proof of earnest efforts to secure their attendance—mere claims of unavailability are not enough.
• Buy-bust operations are planned. Police have time to prepare and gather the required witnesses. Failure to do so suggests that the operation may be a sham or that evidence was planted.
• Presumption of regularity is not automatic. Courts cannot rely on the presumption of regularity when the records show serious procedural lapses. The prosecution must explain any deviation from Section 21.

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