Reasonable Doubt Acquittal in Drug Cases Hinges on Strict Chain of Custody

The Supreme Court has reminded law enforcers that sloppy compliance with the chain of custody rules in drug cases can cost them a conviction. In People v. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 229053, July 17, 2019), the Court acquitted an accused because the arresting team failed to secure the presence of required witnesses during the physical inventory of seized drugs. The ruling underscores a basic principle: the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and it cannot rely on the presumption of regularity to excuse clear procedural lapses.

The Facts of the Case

On July 10, 2012, police officers in Lingayen, Pangasinan conducted a buy-bust operation against Jordan Casaclang Dela Cruz, a 20-year-old high school student suspected of selling marijuana. PO1 Santillan, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased two plastic sachets of suspected marijuana from Dela Cruz. After the arrest, the officers recovered two more sachets from Dela Cruz's pocket. All four sachets tested positive for marijuana.

Dela Cruz was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Dela Cruz appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Central Issue

The sole issue before the Court was whether the absence of an elected public official, a media representative, and a Department of Justice representative during the inventory of the seized drugs warranted acquittal.

The prosecution argued that it had "substantially complied" with Section 21 because the buy-bust team marked and photographed the seized items. PO1 Santillan testified that time constraints and uncertainty over whether Dela Cruz would appear prevented the team from securing third-party witnesses.

Strict Compliance with Section 21

Section 21(1) of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure. This must be done in the presence of: (1) the accused or his representative or counsel; (2) an elected public official; and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.

The Court emphasized that these witnesses serve as an "insulating presence" against the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. Mere marking of the seized items is insufficient. What matters is the certainty that the items taken from the accused are the same items presented in court.

Justifiable Grounds and Earnest Effort

The law allows noncompliance if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity of the seized items is preserved. However, the Court laid down two requisites: the prosecution must specifically allege and prove justifiable grounds, and it must show positive steps taken to preserve the evidence.

The Court found that the prosecution failed on both counts. PO1 Santillan's claim of time constraints was belied by his own testimony. He had conducted a week-long surveillance before the operation, which gave him ample time to coordinate with qualified witnesses. The prosecution presented no evidence of earnest efforts to secure their presence.

Presumption of Regularity Cannot Save the Prosecution

The Court rejected the prosecution's reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. This presumption applies only when officers have shown compliance with the standard conduct required by law. Where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.

Noncompliance with Section 21 negates the presumption of regularity. The prosecution cannot use it as a "sanctuary" to disregard glaring lapses. When the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails.

Practical Takeaways

• Chain of custody is critical. In drug cases, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain from seizure to court presentation. Any gap can result in acquittal.
• Witnesses are mandatory. The presence of an elected official and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or media during inventory is not a mere formality.
• Earnest effort must be shown. Police must prove they actually tried to secure witnesses, not just claim unavailability.
• Presumption of regularity has limits. It cannot excuse clear violations of statutory procedure.
• For the accused, procedural lapses matter. A conviction cannot stand if the identity of the seized drug is in doubt.

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