In the case of People v. David, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to critical lapses in the chain of custody of seized drugs, emphasizing the necessity of strict adherence to Section 21 of RA 9165. The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide justifiable reasons for conducting the inventory and taking photographs of the seized drugs at the police station instead of the place of seizure. This ruling underscores the importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity and admissibility of drug evidence in court, protecting the rights of the accused and preventing potential abuses in drug enforcement operations.

When Pocketing Evidence Undermines Justice: Analyzing Drug Chain of Custody

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Anthony David y Matawaran centers on the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases, specifically addressing the procedural requirements outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accused-appellant, Anthony David y Matawaran, was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The central issue revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of alleged lapses in the handling of the seized drugs by the apprehending officers.

The prosecution presented evidence that on August 16, 2015, a confidential informant reported to the police that accused-appellant was engaged in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. A buy-bust operation was organized, during which PO1 Santos acted as the poseur-buyer and SPO1 Buduan as the backup officer. PO1 Santos testified that he bought a sachet of suspected shabu from accused-appellant using a pre-marked P500.00 bill. After the transaction, accused-appellant was arrested, and another sachet of suspected shabu was allegedly recovered from him during a body search.

However, critical issues arose regarding the handling of the seized items. PO1 Santos admitted to placing the seized sachets in his pockets before marking them, raising concerns about potential tampering or switching of evidence. The inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items were conducted at the police station, not at the place of seizure, and no justifiable reason was provided for this deviation from the standard procedure. These procedural lapses became central to the Supreme Court’s analysis.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the chain of custody in drug cases, noting that the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti. It stated that the prosecution must establish that the substance illegally sold and possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. The chain of custody rule ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, outlines the procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. The provision requires that the apprehending team conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation, in the presence of the accused or his representative, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media.

The Court highlighted that for warrantless seizures, the inventory and taking of photographs should be done at the place of seizure, or in the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, whichever is practicable. The operative phrase is “whichever is practicable,” meaning the police officers have the option to conduct the process in the nearest police station, provided that it is not practicable to conduct the process at the place of seizure, or the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger at the place of seizure.

In this case, the Court found that the police officers did not provide any justifiable reason to excuse them from conducting the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized illegal drugs in the place of seizure. This lack of explanation was deemed fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Court cited the case of People v. Casa, where it was stressed that the conduct of inventory and the taking of photographs of seized items must generally be accomplished immediately at the place of arrest or seizure. Deviations from this general rule are justified only in specific instances, such as when law enforcers would be placed in dangerous situations, or where the seized items or any person involved in the operation are threatened by immediate or extreme danger at the place of seizure.

Building on this principle, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drugs presented in court were the same illegal drugs that were actually seized from accused-appellant. PO1 Santos immediately placed the seized plastic sachets in his pockets even before they were marked. The Court has previously ruled that keeping the seized items in the pockets is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of the items. In People v. Asaytuno, the Court emphasized the dangers of a police officer bodily-keeping the confiscated items, stating that it is fraught with dangers. The failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to account for the transfer of the seized illegal drugs from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. PO1 Santos testified that he was the one who brought the two plastic sachets of suspected shabu to the crime laboratory for examination, as evidenced by the Chain of Custody Receipt. There was no turnover made by the seizing or arresting officer to the investigating officer, which casts doubt on the integrity of the seized items.

Additionally, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs from the forensic chemist to the court were not sufficiently shown. The parties entered into general stipulations on the forensic chemist’s testimony, but these stipulations were incomplete and did not establish that the seized items’ integrity and evidentiary value were preserved. The stipulation did not mention the condition of the specimens when the forensic chemist received them, the description of the method utilized in analyzing the chemical composition of the drug samples, whether she resealed the specimens after examination, or the manner of handling and storage of the specimens before, during, and after the chemical examination.

The Court concluded that the prosecution’s failure to establish with moral certainty the identity and the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from accused-appellant created reasonable doubt as to whether these illegal drugs were the same drugs presented in court. This compromised the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti of the offenses charged. As a result, the Court acquitted accused-appellant Anthony David y Matawaran of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, considering alleged lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution account for each link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, ensuring that the integrity and identity of the evidence are preserved.
What does Section 21 of RA 9165 require?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation, in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media.
Why was the inventory not done at the place of seizure?	The police officers conducted the inventory and took photographs at the police station instead of the place of seizure. The court found that the police officers failed to provide any justifiable reason for this deviation from the required procedure.
What was the significance of PO1 Santos placing the seized items in his pockets?	PO1 Santos’s act of placing the seized items in his pockets before marking them raised concerns about potential tampering or switching of evidence, undermining the integrity of the chain of custody.
Why was the incomplete stipulation of the forensic chemist’s testimony a problem?	The incomplete stipulation failed to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved during the forensic examination, creating doubts about whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused.
What is the role of an investigating officer?	The investigating officer is responsible for conducting the proper investigation and preparing the necessary documents for developing the criminal case, requiring them to have possession of the illegal drugs for the preparation of the required documents.
What is the effect of not following the chain of custody rule?	Failure to comply with the chain of custody rule creates reasonable doubt as to whether the illegal drugs presented in court were the same drugs seized from the accused, potentially leading to acquittal.

This case serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies about the critical importance of adhering to established procedures in handling drug evidence. The strict requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 are designed to safeguard the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused. Failure to comply with these requirements can have significant consequences, including the dismissal of charges and the release of individuals accused of drug-related offenses.

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 v. David, G.R. No. 260990, June 21, 2023