Integrity of Evidence and Safeguarding Rights in Drug Cases

The Supreme Court, in People v. Cadungog (G.R. No. 229926, April 3, 2019), acquitted an accused convicted of illegal sale of drugs because the police failed to comply with the mandatory procedure for handling seized drugs. The case underscores a vital principle: in drug prosecutions, the prosecution must prove not only that a sale occurred, but also that the seized drugs presented in court are the very same items taken from the accused. When police break the rules without justification, the accused is entitled to acquittal on reasonable doubt.

The Facts of the Case

In July 2008, police in Malabuyoc, Cebu conducted a buy-bust operation against Perigrina Cadungog after receiving information that she was selling illegal drugs. A poseur buyer purchased two plastic sachets of suspected shabu for P500. The police arrested Cadungog, marked the sachets, and conducted an inventory at the arrest scene.

The trial court convicted Cadungog of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and acquitted her.

The Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution had proven the identity and integrity of the seized drugs beyond reasonable doubt, given the police officers' failure to strictly follow Section 21 of RA 9165.

The Ruling: Strict Compliance with Section 21

The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. Section 21 of RA 9165, as it stood in 2008, required the apprehending team to physically inventory and photograph seized drugs immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused (or a representative), a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official, all of whom must sign the inventory.

The Court identified three critical lapses by the police:

1. Failure to mark immediately. The poseur buyer marked the sachets only at the police station, not at the place of arrest, with no explanation for the delay.
2. No photographs taken. The police did not photograph the inventory, and offered no reason for this omission.
3. No required witnesses. No DOJ representative, media representative, or elected public official was present during the inventory. The receipt was signed only by police officers and three neighbors. When asked why no DOJ or media representative was present, a police officer answered, "Because the incident suddenly happened."

The Court rejected this explanation. A buy-bust operation is a planned activity, not a sudden event. The police had ample time—eleven days—to arrange for the required witnesses. Their failure, without justifiable grounds, cast serious doubt on whether the drugs presented in court were the same items seized from the accused.

The Saving Clause and Its Limits

The Court acknowledged that the law allows deviation from the procedure under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. However, the prosecution bears the burden of proving compliance and explaining any deviation. In this case, the police did not recognize their lapses or offer acceptable justifications. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail when the record shows clear non-compliance with the law.

Practical Takeaways

• Chain of custody is the heart of drug cases. The prosecution must prove that the drugs seized are the same drugs examined and presented in court. Any break in this chain, without explanation, can lead to acquittal.
• Compliance with Section 21 is mandatory. Police must conduct inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, with the required witnesses present: the accused or a representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
• Planning matters. Because buy-bust operations are planned, police have no excuse for failing to secure the required witnesses. They should bring them along or arrange their presence in advance.
• Silence is not an excuse. If police deviate from the procedure, they must explain why, and the explanation must fall within accepted justifiable grounds, such as the remoteness of the area or threats to safety.
• The presumption of regularity is not a shield. When the record shows non-compliance with Section 21, the prosecution cannot rely on the presumption of regularity to fill the gaps.

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