In People v. Abetong, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, emphasizing the critical importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for drug evidence. The Court held that failure to establish this chain, coupled with inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, raises reasonable doubt and necessitates acquittal. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual rights and ensuring the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases, ultimately reinforcing the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

When a Broken Chain Leads to Freedom: Challenging Drug Evidence Integrity

The case began with an Information filed against Marlon Abetong, accusing him of selling 0.02 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, during a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented PO3 Perez, who testified that he acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased the illegal substance from Abetong. However, the defense argued that Abetong was illegally arrested and that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the integrity of the evidence, citing non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The RTC convicted Abetong, a decision initially affirmed by the CA, which held that the prosecution’s evidence sufficiently established the chain of custody. However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, focusing on lapses in the handling of the seized evidence.

The Supreme Court anchored its decision on the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, which outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. This section mandates that the apprehending team must immediately 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. Moreover, the law requires that within 24 hours of confiscation, the drugs must be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for examination. Non-compliance with these procedures, while not automatically invalidating the seizure, necessitates that the prosecution demonstrate both the preservation of the evidence’s integrity and justifiable grounds for the non-compliance.

In this case, the prosecution failed to meet these requirements. One critical lapse was the failure of Inspector Lorilla, who had sole access to the evidence locker where the seized drugs were stored for three days, to testify. The Court emphasized that a unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable, necessitating scientific analysis to determine their composition. The risk of tampering, loss, or mistake is greatest when the exhibit is small and has physical characteristics similar to other substances. Thus, authenticating narcotic specimens requires a stringent standard, including a chain of custody that renders it improbable that the original item has been exchanged, contaminated, or tampered with.

The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.

The Court found that Inspector Lorilla’s testimony was indispensable. As the sole key holder, he was a vital link in the chain of custody. His testimony was needed to confirm that no unauthorized person accessed the evidence locker and that the integrity of the evidence was maintained during the three-day storage period. Without his testimony, the prosecution could not plausibly claim that the chain of custody had been sufficiently established. The Court noted that PO3 Perez did not even testify that he was assigned to safeguard the evidence locker during this period, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

Further undermining the prosecution’s case was the inconsistency in the weight of the seized drug. The Information charged Abetong with selling 0.02 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, while the forensic chemist, Inspector Ompoy, testified that the specimen weighed 0.04 grams. This discrepancy, the Court stated, was fatal to the prosecution’s case. It casts doubt on the identity of the item seized and tested, eroding any assurance that the evidence offered was the same as that recovered during the buy-bust operation. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, and its identity and integrity must be definitively shown to have been preserved.

The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, and in sustaining a conviction under RA 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. x x x Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the very same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under RA 9165 fails.

The Court also highlighted other procedural lapses by the arresting officers. The date and time of confiscation were not noted on the seized items, no photograph was taken for documentation, and no representatives from the media, DOJ, or any elective official were present during the arrest. While these lapses, if justified, would not necessarily lead to acquittal, the prosecution failed to offer any justifiable grounds for the non-compliance. The Court emphasized that to sustain the lower courts’ findings would render the legal requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 meaningless and diminish the safeguards offered by the law to the accused.

The prosecution attempted to rely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the presumption of regularity is not conclusive and any taint of irregularity affects the entire performance, making the presumption unavailable. In this case, the inconsistency between the amount of drugs the accused allegedly sold and the amount the forensic chemist tested amounted to such an irregularity. The failure to adhere to the chain of custody rule and the absence of justifiable grounds for the procedural lapses led the Court to reverse the CA’s decision and acquit Abetong based on reasonable doubt.

This decision underscores the vital importance of meticulous adherence to the procedural requirements outlined in RA 9165. It reinforces the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that any gaps in the chain of custody or inconsistencies in the evidence can be fatal to their case. The ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to ensure the integrity and preservation of evidence at every step of the process, from seizure to presentation in court.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drug evidence, a requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165, to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why was the chain of custody important in this case?	The chain of custody is crucial because it ensures that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence seized from the accused, preventing tampering, substitution, or contamination that could compromise the integrity of the legal proceedings.
What is the significance of Section 21 of RA 9165?	Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the specific procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs, including inventory, photography, and timely submission to a forensic laboratory, aiming to safeguard the integrity of drug evidence.
Why was Inspector Lorilla’s testimony considered crucial by the Supreme Court?	Inspector Lorilla was the sole key holder to the evidence locker where the seized drugs were stored, making his testimony essential to confirm that no unauthorized person accessed the evidence and that its integrity was maintained.
What was the effect of the discrepancy in the weight of the drugs?	The discrepancy between the weight of the drug the accused was charged with selling (0.02 grams) and the weight of the drug tested by the forensic chemist (0.04 grams) cast doubt on the identity of the evidence, undermining the prosecution’s case.
What does the “presumption of regularity” mean in law enforcement?	The “presumption of regularity” assumes that law enforcement officers perform their duties according to legal procedures; however, this presumption can be overturned if there is evidence of irregularity or deviation from standard protocols.
What happens when the prosecution fails to establish justifiable grounds for non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165?	When the prosecution fails to provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance with Section 21, the court may view this as a significant lapse that undermines the integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to acquittal.
How does this case affect future drug-related prosecutions?	This case reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in drug cases and serves as a reminder to law enforcement to ensure the integrity and preservation of evidence to avoid acquittals based on reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Abetong underscores the need for law enforcement to meticulously follow the prescribed procedures in handling drug evidence. This ruling serves as a safeguard against potential abuses and ensures that the rights of the accused are protected throughout the legal process. The emphasis on maintaining a clear chain of custody and providing justifiable grounds for any deviations from standard procedures is essential for upholding the integrity of the criminal justice 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 v. Abetong, G.R. No. 209785, June 04, 2014