Reasonable Doubt Prevails: Chain of Custody Lapse Leads to Acquittal in Drug Case

In drug cases, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused sold or possessed illegal drugs, but also that the drugs presented in court are exactly the same items seized from the accused. This is called the chain of custody rule. In People v. Cohayco (G.R. No. 241324, September 11, 2019), the Supreme Court acquitted an accused because the police failed to secure a required witness during the inventory of seized drugs, breaking that chain.

The Facts of the Case

In March 2014, PDEA operatives conducted a buy-bust operation against Marivic Cohayco in Oroquieta City. They recovered one big sachet containing ten small sachets of what tested positive as shabu. Because the area was a known drug hotspot, the team brought Cohayco and the seized items to the PDEA Satellite Office, where they conducted the marking, inventory, and photography.

The inventory sheet showed signatures from barangay officials and a media representative, but no representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) signed it. A PDEA officer confirmed this during trial, testifying that only the barangay officials and media were present during the inventory.

Cohayco was convicted by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. She appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody of the seized drugs, particularly whether the absence of a DOJ representative during inventory was justified.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Cohayco. The Court held that the prosecution failed to justify the absence of the DOJ representative, which compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

The Chain of Custody Rule Under RA 9165

Under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the apprehending team must conduct the marking, physical inventory, and photography of seized drugs immediately after seizure. These must be done in the presence of the accused, and before RA 10640 amended the law, in the presence of (a) a representative from the media, (b) a representative from the DOJ, and (c) any elected public official.

The presence of these witnesses is not a mere formality. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that these requirements are matters of substantive law, designed to prevent police abuses like the planting or switching of evidence, especially since the penalty for drug offenses can be life imprisonment.

When Non-Compliance May Be Excused

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance may not always be possible due to field conditions. A "saving clause" allows non-compliance if the prosecution proves two things: (1) there was a justifiable ground for the lapse, and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

Crucially, the prosecution must explain the reasons for the procedural lapse. The Court cannot presume these grounds exist. Mere statements that witnesses were unavailable, without showing actual serious attempts to contact them, are not enough. Police officers typically have time to prepare for buy-bust operations, so they should make the necessary arrangements beforehand.

The Prosecution's Failure

In this case, the PDEA team was justified in conducting the inventory at their satellite office instead of the place of arrest, given the danger of the area. However, the prosecution failed to explain why no DOJ representative was present. The officer merely testified that only barangay officials and media were there. The prosecution did not ask whether efforts were made to secure a DOJ representative.

Because the prosecution presented no justifiable reason for the absence, the Court held that there was an unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule. The integrity of the seized drugs was compromised, creating reasonable doubt.

Practical Takeaways

• Witnesses are mandatory. In drug cases, the inventory and photography of seized items must be witnessed by the required persons: an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative (or, after RA 10640, an elected official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or media).
• Excuses must be proven. If a required witness is absent, the prosecution must present evidence of genuine efforts to secure their presence. A bare claim of unavailability will not suffice.
• Preparation is expected. Police teams usually have time to arrange witnesses before a buy-bust operation. Courts will not readily excuse non-compliance.
• The saving clause is not automatic. Non-compliance does not automatically invalidate a seizure, but the prosecution bears the burden of proving both a justifiable ground and the preserved integrity of the evidence.
• Integrity is everything. Even if the accused is caught with drugs, a broken chain of custody can lead to acquittal because the identity of the corpus delicti is not established with moral certainty.

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