Acquittal in Drug Cases: Why Chain of Custody Compliance Is Non-Negotiable

The Supreme Court has once again underscored that in drug-related prosecutions, the prosecution's failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody requirements under Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) can result in acquittal. In People v. Asaytuno, Jr. (G.R. No. 245972, December 2, 2019), the Court reversed the convictions of two accused for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, emphasizing that when doubt exists on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs—the corpus delicti—an acquittal must follow.

The Facts of the Case

In February 2015, police operatives in Makati City conducted a buy-bust operation against Martin Asaytuno, Jr. and Renato Asaytuno, who were allegedly selling shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride). A poseur-buyer handed a marked P1,000 bill to Renato, while Martin handed over a plastic sachet containing suspected drugs. After the arrest, the officers frisked Martin and recovered two more sachets. The seized items were later tested positive for shabu.

However, the police did not mark the seized sachets immediately at the scene. Instead, because a crowd gathered, they brought the accused and the evidence to the barangay hall, where the marking and inventory were eventually conducted. Only a barangay kagawad witnessed the inventory; no representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service was present. The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed.

The Issue: Was the Chain of Custody Broken?

The central issue was whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the drugs presented in court were the same items seized from the accused. The Court ruled that it had not, due to multiple fatal lapses in the chain of custody.

The Ruling: Strict Compliance Is Required

The Supreme Court reiterated that the corpus delicti in drug offenses is the seized drugs themselves. Their existence and identity must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of custody rule ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

The Court identified several critical violations:

Failure to mark immediately. Marking the seized items is the starting point of the custodial link. It must be done immediately upon confiscation, in the presence of the accused. Here, the sachets were pocketed by the poseur-buyer and only marked later at the barangay hall. This created an unaccounted interval during which the drugs' integrity was compromised.

Absence of required witnesses. Under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, the physical inventory and photographing must be conducted in the presence of the accused or counsel, an elected public official, and a representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service. These witnesses must be present not only during the inventory but at the time of the arrest itself. In this case, only a barangay kagawad appeared, and no media or prosecution representative was secured.

No justifiable grounds for non-compliance. While the law allows deviations under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must prove both the justification and that the integrity of the evidence was preserved. The police officers' excuses—waiting only one minute for an official, or leaving due to a gathering crowd—were deemed perfunctory and insufficient.

Why This Case Matters

The Court also noted the suspicious circumstances surrounding the operation: the police had planned the buy-bust for a day, coordinated with the PDEA, yet recovered only a minuscule amount of drugs. The accused also alleged that officers stole P20,000 from them. The Court warned that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot stand where there is manifest non-compliance with the law.

Practical Takeaways

• For law enforcement: Strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is mandatory. Mark seized items immediately at the scene, and secure the presence of all required third-party witnesses before conducting the operation.
• For the defense: In drug cases, scrutinize the chain of custody. Gaps in marking, inventory, or witness presence can create reasonable doubt and warrant acquittal.
• For the public: The ruling protects against the dangers of planted evidence and ensures that convictions rest on moral certainty, not mere presumption.
• For litigators: When the prosecution fails to prove justifiable grounds for non-compliance, the presumption of regularity cannot fill the gap.

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