In the Philippines, convictions for drug offenses hinge on meticulously preserving the chain of custody of seized substances. The Supreme Court in People v. Constantino, Jr. acquitted the accused due to critical inconsistencies in how the seized methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) was handled and marked by the police. This ruling underscores that failure to maintain an unbroken chain of custody—from seizure to presentation in court—compromises the integrity of the evidence and jeopardizes the prosecution’s case. The decision emphasizes that even in drug-related cases, the prosecution must overcome the presumption of innocence with concrete proof.

Cracks in the Chain: When Doubt Leads to Acquittal in Drug Cases

Hermanos Constantino, Jr. was charged with selling shabu after a buy-bust operation in Tuguegarao City. The prosecution presented evidence claiming Constantino sold two plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a police officer acting as a poseur-buyer. However, conflicting testimonies arose regarding who marked the seized drugs and when, leading to questions about the integrity of the evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found Constantino guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Yet, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, focusing on the broken chain of custody.

The Supreme Court based its decision on the failure of the prosecution to establish a clear and unbroken chain of custody. It began by reiterating the legal principle that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with the prosecution. The elements necessary for conviction in cases involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs are the identity of buyer and seller, the object, the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold along with its payment.

This principle is enshrined in Republic Act No. 9165, specifically Article II, Section 21(1), which specifies that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) further detail this, adding a proviso that non-compliance may be excused if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

Chain of custody is defined as:

Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

The Supreme Court identified four crucial links in the chain of custody. First, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer must be done immediately after the seizure, if practicable. Second, the seized drug must be turned over from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Third, the investigating officer must then turn over the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for examination. Finally, the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist must be turned over and submitted to the court.

In Constantino’s case, the Supreme Court found significant discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the marking of the seized shabu. These inconsistencies cast doubt on whether the evidence presented in court was indeed the same substance seized from Constantino. PO3 Domingo, the poseur-buyer, admitted he did not mark the sachets himself, while PO3 Hernandez testified that SPO2 Taguiam marked them. Adding to the confusion, P/SInsp. Tulauan, the Forensic Chemist, claimed that SPO3 Nelson B. Tamaray marked the sachets upon receipt at the crime laboratory. The inconsistent testimonies of the witnesses are described in the table below:

Witness	Testimony Regarding Who Marked the Sachets
PO3 Domingo	Stated that SPO2 Tamang marked the sachets
PO3 Hernandez	Testified that SPO2 Taguiam marked the sachets
P/SInsp. Tulauan	Declared that SPO3 Nelson B. Tamaray marked the sachets

This inconsistency violated the principle that marking the seized item immediately after seizure is crucial. The court quoted its previous ruling in People v. Zakaria:

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized dangerous drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused, for the marking upon seizure is the starting point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the evidence will use as reference point. Moreover, the value of marking of the evidence is to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, “planting” or contamination of evidence. A failure to mark at the time of taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of the chain of custody that the law requires.

The prosecution did not explain why PO3 Domingo failed to mark the sachets immediately after the purchase. This failure, coupled with the conflicting testimonies, raised doubts about the integrity of the evidence. The prosecution also failed to present SPO2 Tamang or SPO2 Taguiam to validate the marking, further weakening their case. Because of these gaps in the chain of custody, the Supreme Court could not confidently assume that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved.

The Court emphasized the importance of establishing a solid chain of custody to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated dangerous drugs are properly preserved. Failure to do so is fatal to the prosecution’s case, leading to acquittal.

Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted Constantino. Although the court did not necessarily believe Constantino’s defense of frame-up, the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt necessitated his acquittal. The ruling serves as a potent reminder to law enforcement agencies about the critical importance of adhering to established procedures when handling drug evidence, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and that the integrity of the judicial process is upheld.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody of the seized drugs to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The inconsistent testimonies regarding the marking of the drugs compromised the integrity of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody?	The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of possession and handling of evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and reliability of the evidence.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	In drug cases, maintaining a clear chain of custody is vital to ensure that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused, preventing contamination, tampering, or substitution. This is crucial for a fair trial and a just verdict.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court acquitted Hermanos Constantino, Jr. due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, creating reasonable doubt.
What is the significance of marking the seized drugs immediately?	Marking the seized drugs immediately after seizure is crucial because it serves as the starting point in the custodial link. This separates the marked evidence from other similar evidence and ensures that the evidence can be accurately tracked throughout the process.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, it casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The prosecution’s case becomes weaker, and the accused may be acquitted due to reasonable doubt.
What is the role of the poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation?	The poseur-buyer is a law enforcement officer who pretends to purchase illegal drugs from a suspect. Their testimony is crucial in establishing the details of the transaction and identifying the accused as the seller.
What does R.A. 9165 say about the handling of seized drugs?	R.A. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, outlines specific procedures for the handling and custody of seized drugs. It mandates the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused and other witnesses.

The Constantino case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of meticulous adherence to legal procedures in drug cases. The prosecution’s failure to establish a clear and unbroken chain of custody underscores the necessity of preserving the integrity of evidence to ensure fairness and justice in the Philippine legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Hermanos Constantino, Jr. y Binayug, G.R. No. 199689, March 12, 2014