Broken Chain of Custody Leads to Acquittal in Drug Case

The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of a man charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, ruling that the police's repeated failure to follow the chain of custody rule cast serious doubt on the integrity of the seized evidence. The case serves as a reminder that the prosecution must prove every link in the chain of custody of seized drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

The Case of People v. Galisim

In People v. Galisim (G.R. No. 231305, September 11, 2019), the accused was arrested during a buy-bust operation in Pasig City. Police officers claimed he sold a plastic sachet of shabu to a poseur-buyer and that a second sachet was found on him during a body search. He was charged with violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

The trial court convicted him, imposing life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000 for illegal sale, and an indeterminate prison term plus a P300,000 fine for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Chain of Custody Rule

In drug cases, the illegal drug itself is the corpus delicti — the body of the crime. The prosecution must prove that the substance seized from the accused is the same substance presented in court. This is done through the chain of custody rule, which requires the prosecution to account for each link in the chain:

1. Seizure and marking of the drug by the apprehending officer;
2. Turnover of the drug to the investigating officer;
3. Turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
4. Turnover and submission of the marked drug by the forensic chemist to the court.

The rule exists because illegal drugs are easily tampered with, altered, or substituted. Strict compliance protects the accused from the dangers of evidence planting and contamination.

Where the Chain Broke

The Supreme Court found several breaches in the chain of custody in this case.

First, the police failed to comply with the witness requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165. The law requires that the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs be done in the presence of the accused (or his representative), a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and an elected public official. Here, the arresting officers did not mention the presence of any of these required witnesses, and no explanation was given for their absence.

Second, the photographs of the seized items were taken at the police station, not at the place of arrest. The law requires the inventory and photographing to be done immediately after seizure and confiscation, at the place of apprehension or at the nearest police station where practicable.

Third, there was a significant gap in the handling of the evidence. The investigating officer prepared the laboratory request but never actually took custody of the items. The arresting officer kept the drugs for about thirteen hours before delivering them to the forensic chemist. The Court noted that this unexplained delay created doubt about the identity and integrity of the evidence.

Fourth, the prosecution dispensed with the testimony of the forensic chemist. The parties merely stipulated that he received and examined the specimens and issued a report. The Court held that the stipulation did not cover how the evidence was handled, stored, or preserved after examination — a crucial link in the chain.

The Presumption of Regularity Cannot Save the Case

The prosecution argued that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties should apply. The Court rejected this argument. The presumption is merely disputable and cannot prevail over clear evidence of repeated breaches of the chain of custody rule.

The Court emphasized that the saving clause in the law — which allows non-compliance under justifiable grounds — did not apply because the prosecution offered no acceptable explanation for the deviations. The repeated breaches meant the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were not preserved.

Practical Takeaways

• Strict compliance matters. In drug cases, the prosecution must strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. The drug itself is the corpus delicti, and any doubt about its identity or integrity can lead to acquittal.
• Witnesses must be present. The physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs must be done in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. Police must explain any absence of these witnesses.
• Document every transfer. Every movement of the seized drugs — from seizure to marking, to turnover to the investigator, to the forensic chemist, and to the court — must be properly documented and testified to.
• The presumption of regularity is not a shield. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot cure a broken chain of custody. It is a disputable presumption that yields to clear evidence of non-compliance.
• For the accused, procedural lapses can be a defense. A person charged with drug offenses may challenge the conviction if the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items.

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