In People v. Calibod, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. This ruling underscores the critical importance of strictly adhering to the procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, particularly Section 21, which governs the handling and preservation of evidence in drug-related cases. The decision serves as a reminder that even with strong evidence, procedural lapses can undermine the integrity of the prosecution’s case and lead to acquittal.

When Evidence Handling Falters: Unpacking the Chain of Custody in Drug Cases

This case revolves around the arrest and conviction of Niño Calibod for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. According to the prosecution, a buy-bust operation led to Calibod’s apprehension and the seizure of a plastic sachet containing shabu. However, the Supreme Court meticulously examined the procedures followed by the police officers during and after the operation, focusing on the chain of custody of the seized drug. The chain of custody is crucial because it ensures that the substance presented in court as evidence is the same substance seized from the accused, thereby preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime.

The Supreme Court emphasized that an unbroken chain of custody is divided into four critical links, as defined in Dela Riva v. People:

first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.

Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the specific steps that law enforcement officers must take to maintain this chain of custody, requiring immediate physical inventory and photography of the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. These witnesses are mandated to sign copies of the inventory, and each is given a copy. This requirement is intended to prevent tampering, substitution, or planting of evidence, ensuring fairness and reliability in drug-related prosecutions. However, the Court acknowledged that strict compliance may not always be possible due to varied field conditions, as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, now part of statutory law under RA 10640.

The IRR provides that non-compliance with Section 21 will not automatically invalidate the seizure if justifiable grounds exist and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The Court has consistently held that the prosecution must prove both (a) justifiable grounds for non-compliance and (b) the proper preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The burden lies on the prosecution to demonstrate these elements clearly and convincingly, as the Court cannot presume the existence of justifiable grounds or the preservation of integrity.

In People v. Calibod, the Supreme Court found significant procedural lapses that compromised the chain of custody. The police officers failed to conduct the required inventory and photography in the presence of the accused and the mandatory witnesses immediately after the seizure, as indicated in the testimony of PO2 Oruga:

Q: Immediately after the buy bust operation and after getting th plastic sachet, you [placed] markings with initials?

A: Yes. sir.

Q What happened to the plastic sachet that you bought from @ “Toto”?

A: I brought it to Crime Laboratory with Toto to check his hands, if it is positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, sir.

PO2 Oruga’s testimony revealed that he proceeded directly to the crime laboratory after marking the seized shabu, without involving the required witnesses or conducting the necessary inventory and photography. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to explain why these procedures were not followed, making the non-compliance unjustified. The Supreme Court also noted gaps in the second and third links of the chain of custody, specifically the absence of evidence showing that the seized shabu was turned over to an investigating officer and how it was subsequently handled at the crime laboratory.

These procedural breaches, left unexplained by the prosecution, cast serious doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. The Court emphasized that Section 21 of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, not a mere procedural technicality. The failure to comply with these mandatory procedures undermines the reliability of the evidence and the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Niño Calibod, underscoring the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drug, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165, ensuring its integrity and evidentiary value.
What is the chain of custody?	The chain of custody refers to the sequence of steps that must be followed when handling evidence, from seizure to presentation in court, to ensure that the evidence remains untainted and reliable. It involves documenting the transfer of evidence from one person to another.
What are the mandatory requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165?	If the police fail to comply with Section 21, the prosecution must provide justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were still preserved; otherwise, the evidence may be deemed inadmissible.
What constitutes justifiable grounds for non-compliance?	Justifiable grounds must be proven as a fact and depend on the specific circumstances of each case. The Court cannot presume their existence.
Why is the presence of witnesses important during the seizure and inventory?	The presence of witnesses helps prevent the switching, planting, or contamination of evidence, ensuring the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation process.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Niño Calibod due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, citing unjustified procedural lapses by the police officers.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the importance of strict compliance with the procedures outlined in RA 9165 to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases.

The Calibod case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law, even in the face of the government’s efforts to combat drug addiction. While acknowledging the importance of these efforts, the Court insists on adherence to constitutional safeguards and statutory procedures to protect individual liberties. This decision serves as a crucial reminder to law enforcement agencies that proper procedure is not just a formality but an essential component of a fair and just 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. NIÑO CALIBOD Y HENOBESO, G.R. No. 230230, November 20, 2017