Reasonable Doubt Prevails: Broken Chain of Custody Leads to Drug Acquittal

In a significant ruling on drug cases, the Supreme Court acquitted an accused convicted of illegal sale of shabu because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs. The case of People v. Carlit (G.R. No. 227309, August 16, 2017) underscores that the prosecution must prove every link in the chain of custody with moral certainty, and that lapses in the procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 cannot be excused without justifiable grounds.

The case involved a buy-bust operation in Dagupan City where accused-appellant Jocelyn Carlit was arrested after allegedly selling 0.07 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a poseur buyer. The Regional Trial Court convicted her of violating Section 5 of RA 9165, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but the Supreme Court reversed.

The Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution had proven the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly whether it had established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs.

The Broken Links in the Chain

The Supreme Court reiterated that in drug cases, the prosecution must prove four links in the chain of custody: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug from the accused; (2) the turnover to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked drug to the court.

In this case, the prosecution presented only two witnesses: the poseur buyer, PO3 Carvajal, and the forensic chemist, PSI Todeño. The evidence custodian, PO2 Manuel, who received the specimen after the laboratory examination, was never presented. The Court held that this was fatal. Without his testimony, there was no guarantee that the drug presented in court was the same substance seized from the accused. The threat of tampering, alteration, or substitution existed during the entire period the drug was in the custodian's possession.

Non-Compliance with Section 21

The arresting officers also failed to follow the procedural requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165. The poseur buyer admitted that he marked the seized sachet at the police station, not immediately at the place of arrest. More importantly, the inventory was conducted without the presence of an elected public official and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media, as the law requires.

The police officer explained that he was instructed by his team leader to bring the accused immediately to the police station, which is why they did not coordinate with the media or a local official. The Supreme Court rejected this as a justifiable ground for non-compliance. The Court emphasized that non-compliance may be excused only when there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Here, the prosecution offered no valid explanation for the lapses.

The Presumption of Regularity

The Court also reminded that the prosecution cannot simply invoke the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties when there are clear procedural lapses. Once non-compliance is shown, the prosecution bears the burden of proving with moral certainty that the illegal drug presented in court is the same drug confiscated from the accused. In this case, the prosecution failed to discharge that burden.

Practical Takeaways

• Every link must be proven. The prosecution must present witnesses for each stage of the chain of custody, including the evidence custodian, to establish that the drug seized is the same drug presented in court.
• Immediate marking is required. Seized items should be marked at the place of arrest, not at the police station, unless there is a justifiable reason.
• Witnesses to the inventory are mandatory. The presence of an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or media during the physical inventory is a legal requirement, not a mere formality.
• Non-compliance must be explained. A mere instruction from a team leader to proceed to the police station does not constitute a justifiable ground for skipping the requirements of Section 21.
• Reasonable doubt prevails. When the chain of custody is broken and no explanation is offered, the accused is entitled to acquittal, as the prosecution has not proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

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