Safeguarding Rights: The Chain of Custody Rule in Drug Cases and Fair Trials

In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the heart of the crime. If the prosecution cannot prove that the substance presented in court is exactly the same one seized from the accused, the case collapses. The Supreme Court's decision in People v. Velasco (G.R. No. 233084, October 8, 2018) illustrates how strictly this rule is applied — and why it matters for anyone facing drug charges.

The Case Against Velasco

Victor Velasco 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. Police alleged that during a buy-bust operation on May 13, 2010, Velasco sold a sachet containing 0.02 gram of shabu to a poseur-buyer, and that another sachet was recovered from him during arrest.

The seized items were photographed and inventoried at the police headquarters in the presence of a representative from the Muntinlupa City government's Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Office. The items later tested positive for shabu.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Velasco, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Both courts found that the police substantially complied with the chain of custody rule. Velasco appealed to the Supreme Court.

What Is the Chain of Custody Rule?

The chain of custody rule requires the prosecution to account for every link in the handling of seized drugs — from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court. This is because the drug itself forms part of the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. If its integrity is compromised, the evidence cannot prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Under Section 21 of RA 9165, the marking, inventory, and photography of seized items must be done immediately after seizure. These steps must take place in the presence of the accused or his representative, plus certain required witnesses.

Before RA 9165 was amended by RA 10640 in 2014, the required witnesses were a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. After the amendment, the required witnesses are an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.

When Non-Compliance May Be Excused

The Court has recognized that strict compliance is not always possible in the field. The saving clause in Section 21 of the law's Implementing Rules and Regulations — later adopted into RA 10640 — allows non-compliance under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

However, the prosecution must explain the reasons for the procedural lapse. The justifiable ground must be proven as a fact; courts cannot presume it exists. Mere statements of unavailability, without genuine efforts to secure the required witnesses, are not enough.

Why Velasco Was Acquitted

In Velasco's case, the inventory was witnessed only by a DAPCO operative. She was not one of the required witnesses under the law. No elected public official, DOJ representative, or media representative was present.

When asked why the police did not coordinate with the barangay, the poseur-buyer testified that they suspected Velasco had connections in the barangay that could jeopardize the operation. But he admitted that the team never actually checked whether such connections existed.

The Supreme Court found this justification flimsy, self-serving, and unsubstantiated. Since the prosecution failed to show genuine efforts to secure the required witnesses, the saving clause did not apply. The integrity of the seized items was compromised, and Velasco was acquitted.

Practical Takeaways

• The presence of required witnesses during the drug inventory is not a mere technicality. It is a substantive requirement meant to prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
• Police must exert genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the attendance of an elected public official and a media or prosecution representative. Unsupported claims of unavailability will not excuse non-compliance.
• The prosecution bears the burden of proving justifiable grounds for any deviation from the chain of custody rule. Courts will not presume that such grounds exist.
• Failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody can lead to acquittal, even if the accused was positively identified, because the drug itself cannot be authenticated as evidence.
• Anyone facing drug charges should scrutinize whether the inventory and photography of seized items complied with Section 21 of RA 9165, as procedural lapses may form the basis for a valid defense.

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