When Police Skip Drug Evidence Rules: Acquittal in People v. Gajo

In drug cases, the prosecution's success often hinges on a seemingly mundane detail: how police handle the seized substance from the moment of confiscation to its presentation in court. In People v. Gajo y Buenafe (G.R. No. 217026, January 22, 2018), the Supreme Court reminded law enforcers that skipping these procedural safeguards can be fatal to a criminal case, leading to the acquittal of two accused individuals.

The case demonstrates that the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails when police officers fail to follow the strict chain of custody requirements under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Buy-Bust Operation and the Charges

On March 23, 2007, police officers in San Mateo, Rizal conducted a buy-bust operation against Lawrence Gajo based on information from a civilian informant. PO3 Gerallo Justo acted as the poseur-buyer, handing Lawrence P200.00 in marked bills to purchase shabu. Lawrence took the money and entered his house, after which his brother Rico came out and handed a plastic sachet of suspected shabu to the officer.

The police then recovered additional sachets: two from Rico's pocket and one from Lawrence inside the house. All specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. The brothers were charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted the brothers. The trial court found conspiracy between them, while the appellate court ruled that the chain of custody requirement had been substantially complied with.

The Issue: Did Police Properly Handle the Seized Drugs?

The Supreme Court framed the central question: whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 on the custody and disposition of seized drugs.

The Court identified critical gaps in the chain of custody—the recorded movements of the illegal drugs from seizure to laboratory examination to court presentation.

The Gaps in the Chain of Custody

First gap: Delayed and improper marking. PO3 Justo admitted he marked the seized sachets only upon arrival at the police station, not at the scene of the arrest. He claimed a commotion prevented immediate marking, but PO1 San Pedro contradicted this, testifying there was no commotion. Worse, the marking was done without the presence of the accused—they were already inside the jail.

The Court emphasized that marking must be done immediately upon seizure and in the presence of the apprehended person. This is not a mere technicality; it preserves the identity and integrity of the illegal drugs and protects against tampering or substitution.

Second gap: Missing witness. The investigating officer, PC/Insp. Anastacio Benzon, who supposedly received the seized items from PO3 Justo, was never presented in court. Every person who handles the seized item must testify on how they received it and what happened to it while in their custody.

Third gap: Unidentified courier. The Request for Laboratory Examination indicated that a certain PO2 Cruz delivered the specimens to the crime laboratory. Like the investigating officer, PO2 Cruz was never presented to testify, leaving another unexplained break in the chain.

Fourth gap: No inventory or photographs. The police failed to conduct a physical inventory and take photographs of the seized items in the presence of the accused, their counsel, an elected public official, and a representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service, as required by Section 21. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this omission.

The Ruling: Acquittal

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and acquitted Lawrence and Rico Gajo. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish with moral certainty that the shabu seized from the brothers were the same items submitted to the crime laboratory and presented in court.

The Court noted that buy-bust operations are prone to police abuse, making compliance with Section 21 safeguards essential to protect the innocent from rights violations. The presumption of regularity in police performance was overcome by the clear evidence of non-compliance.

Practical Takeaways

• Mark evidence immediately. Police officers must mark seized drugs at the scene of arrest, in the presence of the accused, unless justifiable grounds exist.
• Document every handoff. Every person who handles seized drugs must testify, from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer to the courier to the forensic chemist.
• Prepare the inventory properly. Physical inventory and photographs must be taken in the presence of the accused and required witnesses—an elected official and a media or prosecution service representative.
• Explain any deviation. If strict compliance is impossible, the prosecution must prove justifiable reasons; silence on this point can be fatal.
• For the accused and their counsel, these procedural lapses are powerful defenses that can defeat even seemingly strong drug charges.

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