Weak Chain of Custody Leads to Acquittal in Drug Sale Case

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that in drug cases, the seized substance is the very corpus delicti—the body of the crime. If the police cannot prove that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused, the prosecution fails. In People v. De Leon (G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018), the Court overturned a conviction for illegal sale of shabu because the buy-bust team committed serious, unjustified lapses in complying with the chain of custody rules under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

The Case: A Buy-Bust Operation Gone Wrong

Nova De Leon was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for allegedly selling a small sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a police poseur-buyer in Parañaque City. The trial court convicted her and imposed life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and acquitted her.

The Issue: Was the Seized Drug Properly Identified?

For a conviction in illegal drug cases, the prosecution must prove two things: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the drug and the payment. The seized drug must be established with moral certainty as the very item sold. This requires an unbroken chain of custody.

The Lapses: What the Police Failed to Do

The Court identified several critical failures by the buy-bust team:

No immediate marking. The poseur-buyer admitted he marked the seized sachet only at the barangay hall, not at the scene of arrest. His excuse—that it was raining—was dismissed as flimsy, especially since the operation itself was completed under the same weather in about ten minutes.

No required witnesses. Section 21 requires the inventory and photographing of seized drugs to be done in the presence of the accused or counsel, an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative. Here, only a barangay tanod witnessed the inventory. No DOJ or media representatives were present, and the police offered no credible justification.

No proper inventory location. The IRR allows inventory to be done at the nearest police station when immediate conduct at the place of arrest is not practicable. A barangay hall is not among the alternative places allowed.

Why the Presence of Witnesses Matters

The Court explained that the presence of the three required witnesses is not a mere formality. It serves to insulate the police from accusations of planting, switching, or contaminating evidence. Their presence is most critical at the time of seizure and confiscation, not merely at the inventory. A buy-bust operation is a planned activity, so the team has ample time to bring the witnesses to the scene. The Court rejected the CA's reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, noting that the lapses themselves were affirmative proof of irregularity.

Practical Takeaways

• Strict compliance is the rule. Police must mark, inventory, and photograph seized drugs immediately after seizure, in the presence of the required witnesses. Any deviation must be justified with earnest efforts to comply.
• The presumption of regularity is weak. It cannot overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, especially when the records show serious procedural lapses.
• Prosecutors must prove compliance. They must acknowledge deviations and explain them. Without a justifiable reason, the evidence becomes unreliable and acquittal follows.
• Defense counsel should scrutinize the chain. In drug cases, the chain of custody is often the weakest link in the prosecution's case. Every gap—from marking to laboratory examination—should be challenged.

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