Upholding Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: Safeguarding Evidence Integrity

In drug cases, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused possessed illegal drugs but also that the drugs presented in court are the very same items seized from the accused. This is the essence of the chain of custody rule. In People v. Belga (G.R. No. 241836, November 11, 2021), the Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for illegal drug possession, demonstrating how meticulous police work can satisfy the strict requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by RA 10640.

The Facts of the Case

On February 28, 2014, police officers implemented a search warrant at the residence of Danilo Belga in Bacacay, Albay. During the search, officers recovered three heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance later identified as methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, weighing a collective 0.148 grams. They also seized drug paraphernalia, including a lighter, aluminum foil, and an improvised tooter.

The search was witnessed by two barangay officials, a media representative, and a Department of Justice representative. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the scene. Belga was charged with violating Sections 11 and 12 of RA 9165—illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia, respectively. Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted him. Belga appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

Belga argued that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. Specifically, he claimed that (1) the sachets were not weighed at the inventory, making the alleged amount imprecise, and (2) the prosecution failed to present PO3 Maribel Bagato, the evidence custodian who kept the drugs after laboratory examination.

The Ruling: An Unbroken Chain

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed Belga's conviction. The Court held that the police officers complied with Section 21's requirements "to the letter."

The Court traced each link in the chain of custody:

First link—Seizure and marking. The seizing officer, PO2 Alex Lucañas, recovered the drugs and paraphernalia and marked them in the presence of Belga, two barangay officials, a media representative, and a DOJ representative. The inventory was signed by all required witnesses.

Second link—Turnover to the investigating officer. PO2 Lucañas maintained custody of the items and personally delivered them to the PNP Crime Laboratory on the same day, together with the letter-request for examination.

Third link—Turnover to the forensic chemist. PO2 Zarlyn Latoza received the items, marked the specimens, and handed them to PSI Wilfredo Pabustan Jr., the forensic chemist. The examination yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-43-2014.

Fourth link—Turnover to court. After examination, PSI Pabustan turned over the items to PO3 Bagato, the evidence custodian, for safekeeping. He later retrieved the specimens from the assistant evidence custodian when he testified in court.

Non-Presentation of the Evidence Custodian

The Court rejected Belga's argument that the prosecution's failure to present PO3 Bagato was fatal. Citing People v. Padua (639 Phil. 235 [2010]) and People v. Zeng Hua Dian (475 Phil. 700 [2004]), the Court ruled that not every person who came into contact with the seized drugs must testify. As long as the chain of custody is clearly established and the drugs are properly identified, the prosecution has discretion in choosing its witnesses.

A Model of Compliance

The Court emphasized that this case serves as an example of how police officers can easily comply with Section 21 if they are thorough. The Court noted that while it has acquitted accused persons in numerous cases due to inexcusable police non-compliance, here the officers meticulously followed the procedure—from seizure and marking to final turnover to the court.

Practical Takeaways

• Compliance with Section 21 is mandatory. Police must inventory and photograph seized drugs immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused or counsel, an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative.

• The chain of custody has four links. Seizure and marking, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and turnover to the court. Each link must be accounted for.

• Not every person who handled the drugs must testify. The prosecution need not present every individual who came into contact with the evidence, provided the chain is otherwise unbroken and the drugs are properly identified.

• Precision in weighing matters. The Chemistry Report's recorded net weights confirmed the collective weight stated in the Information, addressing any claim of imprecision.

• Diligent police work protects convictions. When officers follow the rules carefully, the integrity of the evidence is preserved, and convictions are more likely to withstand appellate scrutiny.

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