Chain of Custody Lapses Lead to Acquittal in Drug Sale Case

In a significant ruling for criminal procedure, the Supreme Court acquitted an accused in a drug sale case because police officers failed to comply with the chain of custody rule under Republic Act 9165. The Court emphasized that when the prosecution fails to prove the identity and integrity of seized drugs, the accused is entitled to acquittal on reasonable doubt.

The Case

Mike Omamos y Pajo was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Police conducted a buy-bust operation at Carmen Public Market in Cagayan de Oro City, where an informant purchased dried marijuana from Omamos using marked money. The accused was arrested, and the seized item was later found positive for cannabis.

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted Omamos, relying on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the arresting officers. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

The Chain of Custody Rule

Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that after seizure, the apprehending team must physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The Implementing Rules and Regulations allow leniency only when there are justifiable grounds for non-compliance, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

The Court reiterated the four links that must be proved in the chain of custody: (1) seizure and marking of the drug by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) turnover and submission to the court.

The First Link: Marking, Inventory, and Photography

The Court found that the first link was broken three times. First, the arresting officer admitted he marked the seized marijuana at the police station, not at the place of arrest. Marking should be done immediately upon confiscation in the presence of the accused to ensure the items presented in court are the same ones seized.

Second, no inventory was prepared. The officer was evasive when asked about it, merely stating that a request for laboratory examination was made. Third, while the officer claimed photographs were taken, he never developed them, and no photographs were offered as evidence.

The prosecution offered no explanation for these omissions. The Court noted that the required witnesses under Section 21 were also not present during the defective marking.

The Fourth Link: Forensic Chemist's Testimony

The fourth link was also breached. The testimony of the forensic chemist was dispensed with through a stipulation that only covered her findings on the drug sample. She did not testify on how she handled the drug from receipt until presentation in court, nor did she describe the method of analysis used.

The Court cited previous rulings holding that the forensic chemist must testify on when and from whom the drug was received, what identifying labels accompanied it, and the method of analysis. Without this testimony, the chain of custody remains incomplete.

Presumption of Regularity Cannot Overcome Reasonable Doubt

The Court rejected the prosecution's reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. This presumption arises only when records do not indicate any irregularity. Here, the arresting officers unjustifiably failed to comply with Section 21 requirements. The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity cannot be stronger than the presumption of innocence.

Practical Takeaways

• Police must mark seized drugs immediately at the place of arrest, in the presence of the accused, to prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
• The required inventory and photography under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be accomplished, with the presence of the mandated witnesses.
• The prosecution must present the forensic chemist to testify on the handling, safekeeping, and analysis of the seized drug from receipt until presentation in court.
• Non-compliance with the chain of custody rule can be excused only with justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
• The presumption of regularity in police work cannot substitute for actual compliance with the chain of custody requirements.

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