Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: Why Police Lapses Lead to Acquittal

In a significant ruling for criminal prosecutions involving dangerous drugs, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Howard Lescano y Carreon, who had been found guilty of illegal sale of marijuana. The Court's decision in Lescano v. People (G.R. No. 214490, January 13, 2016) underscores a vital principle: law enforcers cannot trifle with the legal requirement to preserve the integrity of seized drugs. When police fail to follow the chain of custody rules under Republic Act No. 9165, the prosecution fails to establish a crucial element of the offense, and the accused must be acquitted.

The case arose from a buy-bust operation in Olongapo City on July 8, 2008. Police officers allegedly bought 1.4 grams of marijuana from Lescano using a marked P100 bill. After his arrest, an inventory of the seized sachet was supposedly conducted at the police office, and photographs were taken. Lescano was charged with violating Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and was convicted by the Regional Trial Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, relying heavily on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

The Issue Before the Supreme Court

The central question was whether the prosecution had established Lescano's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the Court examined whether the police complied with Section 21 of RA 9165, which governs the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. Compliance with this provision is critical because it ensures the identity of the corpus delicti—the illicit drug itself—which is an essential element in illegal drug cases.

The Requirements of Section 21

Section 21, as amended by RA 10640, requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure. This must be done in the presence of the accused (or his representative or counsel), an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. These persons must sign the inventory and receive copies.

The Court emphasized that these requirements are imperative. Mere marking of the seized items is not enough. Even acts that merely approximate compliance do not suffice. The law leaves room for deviation only under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity of the seized items is preserved—but the prosecution must prove such grounds.

The Prosecution's Fatal Lapses

In this case, the prosecution admitted that the inventory was not conducted in the presence of Lescano, his counsel, or any representative. Likewise, no elected public official, prosecutor, or media representative was shown to have been present during the inventory and photographing. The Court noted that these flaws were the same errors that tainted the integrity of the operation.

The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. As the Court explained, this presumption cannot arise when the official act is irregular on its face. Where police deviate from the standard conduct required by law, the presumption is negated.

The Significance of Minuscule Amounts

The Court also highlighted that the seized item was a single sachet weighing just 1.4 grams. Citing earlier rulings, the Court observed that the likelihood of tampering, loss, or mistake is greatest when the exhibit is small and fungible in nature—similar in form to substances familiar in daily life. The minuscule amount amplifies doubts on the integrity of the evidence and underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21.

Practical Takeaways

• Strict compliance matters. Police must follow Section 21's requirements for physical inventory and photographing, in the presence of the required witnesses. Failure to do so can result in acquittal.
• The presumption of regularity is not a shield. Courts cannot rely on the presumption of regularity when police conduct is irregular on its face. The prosecution must prove compliance or show justifiable grounds for non-compliance.
• Marking alone is insufficient. Simply marking seized drugs is not enough to satisfy the chain of custody requirements of RA 9165.
• Small amounts require greater care. When only minuscule amounts of drugs are seized, courts will apply heightened scrutiny because such evidence is more susceptible to planting or tampering.
• For accused persons. A conviction may be overturned on appeal if the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to court presentation.

The acquittal of Lescano serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement and prosecutors: the integrity of evidence is paramount. When the chain of custody is compromised, the State fails to prove its case, and the accused is entitled to freedom.

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