In the case of People of the Philippines v. Rose Nandi, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, Rose Nandi, due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drug evidence. This ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases to protect the integrity of evidence and ensure a fair trial. The Court emphasized that failure to properly document and preserve the evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court creates reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. This decision serves as a reminder of the prosecution’s duty to prove each element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, especially the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.

Failing the Chain: When a Buy-Bust Becomes a Bust for Justice

Rose Nandi was convicted of selling 0.03 grams of shabu in a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented PO1 Collado, the poseur-buyer, who testified that he bought the shabu from Nandi using marked money. After examining the contents, PO1 Collado gave the signal, and the team arrested Nandi. The police then took Nandi to the station, and the seized item was turned over to the investigator. The sample tested positive for shabu. Nandi denied the charges, claiming she was waiting for a ride when police officers dragged her into a vehicle and later presented the shabu. The RTC found Nandi guilty, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

However, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, focusing on the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The Court reiterated that proving the corpus delicti in drug cases necessitates certainty that the drugs examined in court are the very ones seized. This requirement is crucial given the ease with which drugs can be tampered with or substituted. Section 21 of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the required procedure for handling seized drugs. This includes immediate physical inventory, photographing the drugs in the presence of the accused, and representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.

The Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165, Section 21 states:

Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for disposition in the following manner:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given copy thereof.  Provided, that the physical inventory and the photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at least the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team/officer, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.  x x x x

In Nandi’s case, PO1 Collado’s testimony lacked details on how the shabu was handled and marked after confiscation. He simply stated that he marked the item with his initials and handed it to the investigator, without specifying how it was stored, preserved, labeled, or recorded. Moreover, PO1 Collado admitted that he was not present when the item was delivered to the crime laboratory. The forensic chemist, Bernardino M. Banac, Jr., testified that he received the specimen from PO1 Cuadra, who was not a member of the buy-bust team.

The Supreme Court in Mallillin v. People, elucidated the chain of custody rule, emphasizing the necessity of providing testimony regarding every link in the chain. This includes how and from whom the item was received, where it was kept, what happened to it while in the witness’s possession, and its condition upon receipt and delivery. Witnesses must also describe the precautions taken to ensure the item’s condition remained unchanged and that no unauthorized person had access to it. The court’s ruling underscored that this strict procedure is necessary to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

As a method of authenticating evidence, 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 witnesses’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.  These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

The chain of custody involves several crucial steps. The initial seizure and marking by the apprehending officer, the turnover to the investigating officer, the investigating officer’s turnover to the forensic chemist, and the chemist’s subsequent submission of the marked evidence to the court. The Court found these linkages were not clearly established in Nandi’s case. PO1 Collado failed to provide specific details on how the shabu was handled immediately after seizure and could not even identify the investigator who received it. Due to these lapses, the Court concluded that the chain of custody had been compromised.

The Court also noted a discrepancy in the weight of the shabu. The information stated 0.03 grams, while the chemistry report indicated 0.23 grams. PO1 Collado dismissed this as a forensic laboratory error, but the Court found this explanation unacceptable. Given the existing doubts about the chain of custody, this discrepancy further undermined the prosecution’s case. Because of these factors, the Supreme Court resolved the doubts in favor of the accused, highlighting that the prosecution had not proven all elements of the crime with moral certainty.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drug evidence, ensuring its integrity and admissibility in court.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires that every person who handled the evidence must testify about how they received it, where they kept it, its condition, and the precautions taken to preserve its integrity. This ensures the evidence presented in court is the same as that seized from the accused.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	It is important because illegal drugs are easily tampered with or substituted. Maintaining a clear chain of custody ensures the integrity and reliability of the evidence, which is critical for a fair trial.
What are the requirements for a proper chain of custody under R.A. No. 9165?	R.A. No. 9165 requires immediate physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. These steps document the evidence and ensure transparency.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, it casts doubt on the identity and integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused, as happened in this case.
What was the discrepancy in the weight of the shabu in this case?	The information stated the shabu weighed 0.03 grams, while the forensic chemist’s report indicated 0.23 grams. This inconsistency raised further doubts about the evidence’s integrity.
Why was the accused acquitted in this case?	The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and there was a significant discrepancy in the weight of the seized drug, creating reasonable doubt.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in handling drug evidence to protect the rights of the accused and ensure fair trials.

This case highlights the critical importance of meticulous adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug cases. The prosecution’s failure to properly document and preserve the evidence led to the acquittal of the accused, underscoring the need for law enforcement to strictly follow prescribed procedures. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a vital reminder of the prosecution’s burden to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring justice is served.

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, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs. ROSE NANDI Y SALI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT, G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010