In People v. De Asis, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Rico de Asis for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. The Court underscored that the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs must be preserved from the moment of confiscation until their presentation in court. This ruling reinforces the stringent requirements for handling drug evidence to ensure that convictions are based on reliable and untainted evidence.

The Buy-Bust That Led to a Jail Cell: Did Police Follow the Rules?

Rico de Asis was apprehended during a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Cagayan de Oro City. He was subsequently charged with and convicted of illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The prosecution presented evidence that De Asis sold a sachet of shabu to a PDEA agent acting as a poseur-buyer. Additionally, four more sachets of the same substance were found in his possession during the arrest. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision with a slight modification to the penalty for illegal possession. De Asis appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the legality of his arrest and the handling of the evidence against him.

At the heart of De Asis’s appeal was the argument that law enforcement officials failed to comply with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This section outlines the required chain of custody for seized drugs, a critical aspect of ensuring the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases. De Asis contended that the prosecution did not adequately establish an unbroken chain of custody, thereby casting doubt on the authenticity of the seized drugs presented as evidence against him. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with his assertions.

The **chain of custody** is a crucial concept in drug cases. It refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled precursors and essential chemicals, from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping, and to presentation in court for identification. This ensures the integrity of the evidence by preventing contamination, substitution, or alteration. The Supreme Court emphasized that for drug-related cases to prosper, the corpus delicti—the drug/s subject of the offense charged—must be duly identified, proved, and presented in court. Citing People v. Pundugar, G.R. No. 214779, February 7, 2018, the Court reiterated this principle.

Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, provides specific steps that the apprehending team must follow immediately after seizure and confiscation. These include conducting a physical inventory of the seized items, photographing them in the presence of the accused or their representative, and ensuring that an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media are present to sign the inventory and receive a copy. The law states:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs x x x. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs x x x so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs x x x shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that these requirements were met. The Court noted that Agent Taghoy immediately marked the seized items with his initials and the date of the buy-bust operation. The inventory was conducted at the appellant’s house in the presence of a barangay kagawad and a media representative. Photographs were taken, documenting the seized items and the inventory process. Agent Gacus and Agent Taghoy identified and attested that the items seized from the appellant were the same ones presented in court. PCI Esber, the forensic chemist, confirmed that the specimens tested positive for shabu.

The Court also addressed the issue of non-compliance with the strict requirements of Section 21. The last proviso of Section 21(1) allows for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. This provision recognizes that strict adherence to the procedural requirements may not always be possible, and it aims to prevent the acquittal of individuals based on technicalities when the integrity of the evidence remains intact. As long as the prosecution satisfactorily establishes that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, minor deviations from the prescribed procedure will not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the evidence.

The Supreme Court, in affirming the conviction of De Asis, emphasized the importance of maintaining the chain of custody to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs. The Court found that the essential elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the procedural requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 were substantially complied with. This case serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow the prescribed procedures in handling drug evidence to avoid any challenges to the admissibility and reliability of such evidence in court.

The ruling in People v. De Asis underscores the necessity of a well-documented and unbroken chain of custody in drug cases. It reinforces the principle that the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused. The Court’s decision ensures that convictions are based on reliable and untainted evidence, thereby upholding the rights of the accused while effectively combating illegal drug activities.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody of the seized drugs to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence against the accused.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs, from the time of seizure to presentation in court, ensuring the integrity of the evidence. This prevents contamination, substitution, or alteration of the evidence.
What are the essential steps in the chain of custody?	The essential steps include immediate marking and inventory of seized items, photographing them in the presence of the accused and witnesses, and submitting them to the forensic laboratory for examination. These steps must be documented and followed meticulously.
What happens if there is non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165?	Non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate the seizure if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must demonstrate that the integrity of the evidence was maintained.
What was the evidence presented by the prosecution in this case?	The prosecution presented the testimony of PDEA agents, the marked money used in the buy-bust operation, the seized sachets of shabu, the inventory and photographs of the seized items, and the forensic chemist’s report confirming the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
What was the accused’s defense?	The accused argued that the PDEA agents did not comply with the chain of custody requirements and that the evidence against him was planted. He denied any involvement in illegal drug activities.
What did the Supreme Court rule in this case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused, holding that the prosecution had sufficiently established the chain of custody and proven the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
Why is the chain of custody so important in drug cases?	The chain of custody is crucial because it ensures that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the evidence and protecting the rights of the accused against potential abuses.

This case serves as an important precedent for law enforcement agencies, highlighting the need to adhere strictly to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. By meticulously following the prescribed procedures, law enforcement can ensure that drug convictions are based on reliable and untainted evidence, thereby upholding justice and combating illegal drug activities effectively.

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. RICO DE ASIS Y BALQUIN, G.R. No. 225219, June 11, 2018