Chain of Custody Breach in Drug Buy-Bust Leads to Acquittal

The Supreme Court has long held that the government's war on drugs cannot come at the cost of the constitutional rights of the accused. In People v. Dela Victoria (G.R. No. 233325, April 16, 2018), the Court demonstrated this principle in action by reversing a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The ruling underscores a vital rule for criminal cases: when police officers deviate from the mandatory chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 without justifiable grounds, the integrity of the seized evidence is compromised, and the accused must be acquitted.

The Facts of the Case

Pastorlito V. Dela Victoria was arrested on October 9, 2008, in Butuan City during a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). A PDEA operative, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one sachet of suspected shabu for P500.00 in marked money. Dela Victoria was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs).

The Regional Trial Court convicted Dela Victoria and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the entire records and found serious procedural lapses in how the PDEA operatives handled the seized drugs.

The Issue

The central issue was whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Dela Victoria's conviction. In resolving this, the Court examined whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, as required by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

The Chain of Custody Rule

To convict an accused of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and payment. Critically, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty because the drug itself is the corpus delicti of the crime.

Under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 (as it stood before amendment by RA 10640), the apprehending team must, immediately after seizure, conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of:

• The accused or his representative or counsel;
• A representative from the media;
• A representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); and
• Any elected public official.

These witnesses must sign the inventory and receive copies. The seized drugs must also be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours.

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance may not always be possible under field conditions. However, for non-compliance to be excused, the prosecution must prove two things: (1) there was a justifiable ground for the deviation, and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The justifiable ground must be proven as a fact—the Court cannot presume its existence.

Unjustified Deviations in This Case

The Supreme Court identified several fatal lapses by the PDEA operatives.

First, the seized sachet was not marked in the presence of Dela Victoria. The poseur-buyer testified that he only placed markings on the sachet upon arriving at the PDEA Office, while Dela Victoria remained inside the vehicle. Marking is the starting point in the custodial link; it must be done immediately to prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

Second, the marking and inventory were not conducted at the place of arrest or at the nearest police station. The Langihan Police Station and the San Ignacio Barangay Hall were closer to the arrest site than the PDEA Office, which was about six kilometers away. The operative's explanation that it was "not their practice" to stop by the police station was insufficient. The barangay captain even testified that he was at the barangay hall when summoned, making the deviation even less justifiable.

Third, there was no DOJ representative present during the inventory, and no justification was offered for this absence. Only the barangay captain and a media representative signed the inventory, and they arrived separately.

These lapses, taken together, cast serious doubt on the integrity of the confiscated drug. The Court emphasized that the presence of the required witnesses and the immediate marking of the seized items cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural technicality.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Dela Victoria. The Court reiterated that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and appellate courts have the duty to correct errors whether assigned or unassigned.

The Court also reminded prosecutors of their positive duty to prove compliance with Section 21. They must acknowledge and justify any deviations during trial. If no justifiable reasons exist, the appellate court must acquit the accused, even if the issue was not raised below.

Practical Takeaways

• Compliance with Section 21 is mandatory. Police officers must conduct marking, inventory, and photography of seized drugs immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses (media, DOJ, and an elected public official).

• Non-compliance requires justification. If police deviate from the procedure, the prosecution must prove the justifiable ground as a fact. Vague excuses like "it is not our practice" will not suffice.

• Marking must be immediate. Delaying the marking of seized drugs, especially when a closer police station or barangay hall is available, compromises the integrity of the evidence.

• Prosecutors must be proactive. They must raise and justify any procedural deviations during trial, not wait for the defense to object.

• Acquittal is the remedy. When the chain of custody is broken without justification, the corpus delicti is compromised, and the accused is entitled to acquittal.

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