Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: Why the Three-Witness Rule Matters

In a significant ruling on drug cases, the Supreme Court acquitted Ma. Floriza Fulgado and her co-accused Edlyn Tamayo of illegal sale and possession of shabu. The reason: police officers failed to comply with the three-witness rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case, People v. Fulgado (G.R. No. 246193, February 19, 2020), is a reminder that in drug prosecutions, the integrity of the seized drugs—the corpus delicti—is just as important as the arrest itself.

The Facts of the Case

On February 11, 2015, a confidential informant told the Cardona Police Station in Rizal that Fulgado and Tamayo were selling drugs near a church. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO2 Cruz acting as the poseur-buyer. During the operation, Fulgado received the marked money, and Tamayo handed the sachet of shabu to the officer. The team arrested both women and recovered additional sachets.

The police marked the seized items at the scene, but the inventory was done later at the police station. Only one elected barangay official witnessed the inventory. No representative from the media or the Department of Justice (DOJ) was present.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted the accused. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the conviction.

The Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, or whether the police's failure to secure the required witnesses fatally compromised the case.

The Ruling: Strict Compliance Matters

The Supreme Court ruled for the accused. The Court emphasized that for both illegal sale and illegal possession of drugs, the prosecution must prove the existence of the drug itself—the corpus delicti—beyond reasonable doubt. This means proving there was no interruption in the chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court.

Section 21 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure, in the presence of:

• The accused or their representative or counsel;
• An elected public official; and
• A representative from the media and the DOJ (under the law as it stood before the 2014 amendment by R.A. No. 10640).

In this case, only a barangay kagawad was present. The Court noted that the inventory was not done at the place of arrest but at the police station, and no effort was shown to secure the other required witnesses.

The Justifiable Grounds Exception

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance is not always possible. However, for non-compliance to be excused, the prosecution must prove two things: (1) there was a justifiable ground for the failure, and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

Citing People v. Lim, the Court listed examples of justifiable grounds—such as the arrest occurring in a remote area, threats to witness safety, or earnest efforts to secure witnesses that proved futile. Crucially, the Court stressed that earnest effort to secure the attendance of the witnesses must be proven. In this case, the prosecution offered no explanation at all.

The Court also echoed People v. Retada in criticizing the common police practice of "calling in" witnesses only after the buy-bust is finished. This defeats the purpose of the rule, which is to prevent the planting of drugs.

Why This Ruling Matters

The Court was firm: the procedure in Section 21 is a matter of substantive law, not a mere technicality. A breach in the procedure compromises the integrity of the evidence and undermines the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The ruling also benefited Tamayo, who did not appeal. Under the Rules of Court, a favorable judgment applies to a co-accused who did not appeal when the evidence against them is inextricably linked.

Practical Takeaways

• For law enforcement: The three-witness rule is not optional. Police must secure the presence of the required witnesses at the time of inventory and photographing, and document any earnest efforts to do so. "Calling in" witnesses after the fact is not enough.
• For defense lawyers: Scrutinize the chain of custody. If the prosecution cannot explain non-compliance with Section 21, the integrity of the seized drugs is compromised, and acquittal may be warranted.
• For the public: This ruling protects against planted evidence. The strict requirements exist to ensure that the drugs presented in court are exactly the drugs seized from the accused.
• For prosecutors: The burden is to prove justifiable grounds for any deviation from Section 21. Silence on this point is fatal to the case.

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