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

In drug cases, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused sold or possessed illegal drugs, but also that the drugs presented in court are exactly the same items seized from the accused. When police officers fail to follow the required procedure for handling seized drugs, even a seemingly strong case can collapse. The Supreme Court's 2018 decision in People v. Cordova and Eguiso (G.R. No. 231130) illustrates this principle clearly, resulting in the acquittal of two accused persons due to unjustified procedural lapses by the arresting team.

The Facts of the Case

On April 8, 2005, members of the Bacolod City Police Office conducted a buy-bust operation against Gerald Cordova, who was suspected of selling shabu. A poseur-buyer purchased P200.00 worth of shabu from Cordova. After the sale, police officers frisked Cordova and recovered five more sachets of suspected shabu. They also recovered one sachet from Marcial Eguiso, who was with Cordova at the time.

Cordova was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, while Eguiso was charged with illegal possession. Both were convicted by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed their conviction and ordered their acquittal.

The Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution had established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the police officers' failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Chain of Custody Rule

Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that after seizing drugs, the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. These witnesses must sign the inventory and receive copies.

The law also requires that seized drugs be turned over to the crime laboratory within 24 hours from confiscation. The purpose of these requirements is to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs, which form the corpus delicti—the body of the crime—in drug cases.

While the Court has recognized that strict compliance may not always be possible under field conditions, the prosecution must prove two things to excuse non-compliance: (1) there was a justifiable ground for the deviation, and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The prosecution cannot simply presume these grounds exist; they must be proven as facts.

The Prosecution's Unjustified Lapses

The Supreme Court identified several breaches of the chain of custody rule that, taken together, warranted acquittal.

First, Eguiso was not present during the photographing of the seized items. When asked why, the police officer could only say that "maybe our office made an oversight." The Court rejected this tentative excuse, noting that the procedure in Section 21 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a mere technicality.

Second, the records failed to show that representatives from the media and the DOJ were present during the inventory and photography. The certification signed by barangay officials lacked the signatures of these required witnesses. There was also no evidence that the police even attempted to contact them, despite buy-bust operations being typically planned in advance.

Third, the seized items were not delivered to the crime laboratory until three days after the arrest. The police officer kept the drugs in his personal locker during this period. While the crime laboratory chemist testified about an agreement to accommodate Friday apprehensions, the police did not follow this arrangement. The prosecution also failed to explain what security measures were taken to protect the evidence during the three-day delay.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court emphasized that when the prosecution fails to justify deviations from the chain of custody rule, the integrity of the evidence is compromised, and the accused must be acquitted. The Court stressed that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot cure affirmative proof of procedural lapses.

The Court also reiterated that the government's strong campaign against illegal drugs cannot override the constitutional protection of individual liberty. Even those accused of serious crimes are entitled to the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Practical Takeaways

• For law enforcement officers: Strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is mandatory. Document every step of the chain of custody, secure all required witnesses, and deliver seized drugs to the crime laboratory promptly. If compliance is impossible, document the justifiable reasons in sworn statements.

• For prosecutors: The burden is on the prosecution to prove compliance with the chain of custody rule—or to prove justifiable grounds for non-compliance. This burden cannot be discharged by relying on presumptions or by addressing the issue only on appeal.

• For defense lawyers: Scrutinize the chain of custody in every drug case. Look for missing witnesses, unexplained delays, and gaps in the documentation. These lapses can be the basis for acquittal.

• For the public: The rules on chain of custody protect everyone from the dangers of evidence planting and tampering. They are not mere technicalities but essential safeguards for the integrity of criminal prosecutions.

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