Reasonable Doubt Prevails: Conviction Overturned Due to Broken Chain of Custody in Drug Case

In a significant ruling for criminal procedure, the Supreme Court overturned a conviction for illegal sale of drugs, emphasizing that the prosecution cannot rely on the presumption of regularity when police officers fail to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165). The case of People v. Dungo (G.R. No. 229720, August 19, 2019) serves as a clear reminder that the integrity of seized evidence is paramount and that gaps in the chain of custody can lead to acquittal on reasonable doubt.

The Case: A Buy-Bust Operation Under Scrutiny

On September 2, 2009, police officers in Sto. Tomas, Pampanga conducted a buy-bust operation against Melvin Dungo, who was suspected of selling shabu. A poseur-buyer handed P500 to Dungo, who allegedly gave two plastic sachets of suspected shabu in return. Dungo was arrested, and the sachets were marked at the scene. However, the physical inventory and photographs were taken only later at the police station, not at the place of arrest.

The trial court convicted Dungo of violating Section 5 of RA 9165, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Both lower courts relied heavily on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers.

The Issue: Was Guilt Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt?

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had proven Dungo's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court answered in the negative, reversing the conviction and ordering Dungo's immediate release.

The Ruling: Broken Chain of Custody Creates Doubt

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs. Central to a drug case is the identity of the confiscated item—the corpus delicti—which must be established with the same exactitude as the finding of guilt itself.

Under Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the apprehending team must physically inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused or their counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and an elected public official. While the law allows for marking at the nearest police station in warrantless seizures, the prosecution must prove that the team exerted efforts to comply and that any deviation was justified.

In this case, the Court identified several glaring omissions. No representatives from the DOJ or media were present during the inventory. The barangay kagawads who allegedly witnessed the inventory were never presented in court, and no explanation was offered for their absence. Furthermore, the police officer who delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory was not part of the buy-bust team and did not testify. Most critically, the forensic chemist admitted he had no knowledge whether the sachets he examined were the same ones seized from Dungo.

The Court emphasized that non-compliance with Section 21 requires two concurring elements: a justifiable ground for the deviation, and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Both must be alleged and proven as facts by the prosecution. In this case, the prosecution failed to even acknowledge the gaps, much less justify them.

The Presumption of Regularity Cannot Save a Flawed Case

The Court was explicit: the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty "stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty." It is not conclusive and cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent.

The ruling also flagged a systemic problem—law enforcement, prosecutors, and even trial courts have fallen into the habit of relying too heavily on this presumption instead of conducting proper investigation and case preparation. The Court reiterated its mandatory policy from People v. Lim: apprehending officers must state their compliance with Section 21 in their sworn statements, and if there is non-compliance, they must state the justification and the steps taken to preserve the evidence. If no justification is given, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case.

Practical Takeaways

• Strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is substantive law, not a mere procedural technicality. Police must conduct inventory and photographing in the presence of the required witnesses.
• The three-witness rule is crucial: the accused or counsel, an elected public official, and a representative from the DOJ or media must be present during the inventory.
• Any deviation must be justified and proven as fact. The prosecution cannot simply invoke the presumption of regularity to fill gaps in the chain of custody.
• Every link in the chain must be accounted for, from seizure and marking to turnover to the investigator, the forensic chemist, and finally the court. Each person who handled the evidence should testify.
• For the accused, a broken chain of custody can be a strong defense, especially when the prosecution fails to explain irregularities in the handling of seized drugs.

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