In People v. Salonga, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to a broken chain of custody in handling seized drugs, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. This decision reinforces the necessity of meticulously documenting the handling of evidence to protect individuals from wrongful convictions and maintain the integrity of the justice system. The ruling underscores that failure to properly account for seized drugs from the point of confiscation to presentation in court creates reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.
From Buy-Bust to Broken Chain: When Doubt Undermines a Drug Conviction
Freddy Salonga was charged with illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) following a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented testimonies from police officers who detailed the operation, claiming Salonga sold shabu to an undercover officer and was later found with more sachets of the drug. The defense argued that Salonga was mistakenly arrested and that the police were initially looking for his brother. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Salonga, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court (SC) reversed these decisions, focusing on critical flaws in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
The concept of **chain of custody** is crucial in drug-related cases, acting as a method to authenticate evidence. As the Supreme Court emphasized, this requires a detailed record of every link in the chain, from the moment the item is seized until it is presented in court. This ensures that the evidence presented is the same as that taken from the accused, preventing tampering, substitution, or contamination. The Court has articulated that this chain includes testimony about every link, explaining how and from whom evidence was received, its condition, and the precautions taken to maintain its integrity. In Malillin v. People, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of this protocol:
“It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in 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. 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.”
In this case, the Supreme Court identified several critical breaks in the chain of custody. First, there was no clear evidence that the marking of the seized drugs at the police station was done in the presence of the accused or their representative. While marking immediately after confiscation is acceptable, it must still occur in the presence of the accused to ensure transparency and prevent any doubts about the integrity of the evidence. The Court has emphasized that:
“Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contrabands are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.”
Second, the prosecution failed to provide a Certificate of Inventory or photographs of the seized items, as required by Section 21 of R.A. 9165. This provision mandates that:
Section 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 equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
The absence of these documents raised further doubts about the proper handling of the evidence. Third, the Supreme Court noted conflicting testimonies regarding who received the drug specimens at the Crime Laboratory. While Police Senior Inspector Annalee R. Forro testified that she personally received the specimens, the Request for Laboratory Examination indicated that PSI Cariño was the recipient. This discrepancy was never adequately explained by the prosecution, adding to the uncertainty surrounding the integrity of the seized items.
Adding to the prosecution’s woes, PO2 Suarez, who marked the specimens, failed to identify them in court as the same ones submitted for testing. Similarly, PO3 Santos, who delivered the specimens to the laboratory, did not confirm in court that the presented items were the same ones he delivered. This failure to identify the seized drugs in open court further weakened the chain of custody. The cumulative effect of these gaps and inconsistencies created a reasonable doubt as to whether the specimens seized from Salonga were the same ones tested and presented as evidence.
Given these failures, the Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty could not be invoked. This presumption cannot substitute for concrete evidence, especially when the procedures were marred by material lapses that cast doubt on the integrity and identity of the evidence. In cases where there are allegations of frame-up, the need for strict adherence to procedures becomes even more critical. The Court stated clearly that the presumption of regularity cannot overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted Salonga, reinforcing the principle that the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody to secure a conviction in drug-related cases. The Court reiterated its call for authorities to exert greater efforts in combating the drug menace while adhering to the safeguards necessary to protect civil liberties. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of meticulous evidence handling and the protection of individual rights within the criminal justice system. The failure to properly establish the chain of custody casts a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused, warranting an acquittal. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on procedural safeguards and the need for meticulous evidence handling underscores the commitment to protecting individual rights and ensuring fairness in drug-related prosecutions.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved the chain of custody of the seized drugs to warrant a conviction for illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride. |
| What is the chain of custody rule? | The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution account for every link in the chain of possession of seized evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, to ensure its integrity and prevent tampering. |
| Why is chain of custody important in drug cases? | It is crucial because it ensures that the substance tested and presented in court is the same one seized from the accused, thereby protecting the accused from wrongful conviction based on tampered or substituted evidence. |
| What were the major lapses in the chain of custody in this case? | The lapses included failure to mark the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, lack of a Certificate of Inventory, conflicting testimonies about who received the specimens at the Crime Laboratory, and failure of police officers to identify the seized drugs in court. |
| What is the effect of a broken chain of custody? | A broken chain of custody creates reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the evidence, which can lead to the acquittal of the accused. |
| Can the presumption of regularity overcome a broken chain of custody? | No, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot overcome a broken chain of custody, especially when there are allegations of frame-up or material lapses in procedure. |
| What is required under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 regarding seized drugs? | It requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. |
| Who has the burden of proving the identity of the drugs in court? | The prosecution has the burden of proving the identity and integrity of the seized drugs beyond a reasonable doubt. |
The People v. Salonga case highlights the critical importance of adhering to proper procedures in handling drug evidence. The decision serves as a strong reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously document every step in the chain of custody to ensure the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused. This case reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding due process and safeguarding individual liberties within the framework of the law.
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. Salonga, G.R. No. 194948, September 02, 2013
Leave a Reply