Inconsistent Testimony Does NOT Automatically Break Chain of Custody in Drug Cases

In drug cases, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused possessed or transported illegal drugs, but also that the drugs presented in court are the very same items seized from the accused. This is the essence of the chain of custody rule. But what happens when prosecution witnesses give conflicting accounts of how the drugs were recovered? Does any inconsistency automatically break the chain and warrant acquittal?

In People v. Dimaano (G.R. No. 174481, February 10, 2016), the Supreme Court held that minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not automatically break the chain of custody, so long as the identity of the drugs is established beyond reasonable doubt and the chain is preserved with moral certainty.

The Facts of the Case

On November 13, 2002, Non-Uniformed Personnel Florence Bilugot, a frisker at the Manila Domestic Airport Terminal 1, noticed a hard object bulging near the buttocks of departing passenger Cristy Dimaano. When asked, Dimaano claimed it was a sanitary napkin. Suspicious, Bilugot brought Dimaano to the ladies' room, where she found a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance hidden in Dimaano's panties. Dimaano allegedly admitted the substance was "shabu" and said she was merely asked to bring it.

Bilugot turned over the sachet to SPO2 Reynato Ragadio, who was waiting outside. The sachets were eventually submitted to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, where Forensic Chemist Police Inspector Abraham Tecson confirmed that the contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, weighing 13.96 grams.

The Issue

Dimaano was charged with attempted transportation of dangerous drugs under Section 5, in relation to Section 26, of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). She argued that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt because of inconsistencies in the testimonies of Bilugot and Ragadio.

Bilugot testified that she recovered only one plastic sachet from Dimaano, while Ragadio recalled receiving two plastic sachets, which contained a total of seven smaller sachets. Dimaano argued that this discrepancy cast doubt on the identity of the drugs and constituted a break in the chain of custody.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed Dimaano's conviction, holding that the inconsistency did not break the chain of custody.

The Court explained that the discrepancy was explained by the fact that the two outer sachets were placed inside a single bigger plastic bag. Bilugot may have perceived the entire bundle as one sachet, while Ragadio, who received the items, saw two distinct sachets. Moreover, the forensic chemist confirmed that he received two plastic sachets marked with Bilugot's initials "FSB," corroborating Ragadio's account.

The Court also noted that the failure to mark the seven smaller sachets was not fatal. The outer sachets were heat-sealed, and opening them to mark the inner sachets would have risked contaminating the specimen. The Court held that the marking of seized items need only be done as far as practicable.

The Standard: Substantial Adherence, Not Perfect Compliance

The Court reiterated that the procedural requirements for handling seized drugs under RA 9165 are designed to protect the accused from malicious imputations of guilt. However, these requirements cannot be used to thwart the legitimate efforts of law enforcement agents. Slight infractions or nominal deviations from the prescribed method should not exculpate an otherwise guilty defendant.

What matters is substantial adherence to the procedure, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The Court also cited the principle that witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall. In fact, a witness who candidly admits uncertainty about minor details may be more credible than one who recites a rehearsed account.

Practical Takeaways

• Minor inconsistencies are not fatal. A discrepancy in the number of sachets recovered, or other peripheral details, does not automatically break the chain of custody if the identity of the drugs is otherwise established.
• The chain of custody focuses on the integrity of the drugs. What matters is that the prosecution can show the drugs examined and presented in court are the very ones seized from the accused.
• Substantial adherence to the procedure suffices. Perfect compliance with the procedural requirements of RA 9165 is not required; what is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.
• Credibility of witnesses remains key. Courts give great weight to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, especially when there is no evidence of ill motive on the part of the arresting officers.
• Practical limitations are recognized. The marking of seized items need only be done as far as practicable. Opening heat-sealed sachets to mark inner packets, for example, may be excused to avoid contamination.

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