In People v. Viterbo, the Supreme Court acquitted Marcelino and Ronald Viterbo of drug sale charges, highlighting critical failures in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s inability to account for each link in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt, undermining the integrity and evidentiary value of the alleged illegal substance. This ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, ensuring that the identity and preservation of drug evidence are beyond question to protect individual rights against potential abuse.

Failing the Test: How a Botched Buy-Bust Led to Freedom

The case began with a confidential informant tipping off the police about drug peddling in Ligao City, Albay. A buy-bust operation was set up, leading to the arrest of Marcelino and Ronald Viterbo. SPO4 Cardona, acting as the poseur-buyer, claimed to have purchased shabu from Marcelino, with Ronald handing over the substance. However, critical gaps in the handling of the seized evidence ultimately led to the Viterbos’ acquittal. The Supreme Court focused intently on whether the prosecution adequately proved that the substance presented in court was indeed the same one confiscated from the accused.

The central issue revolved around the **chain of custody**, a legal principle ensuring the integrity and identity of evidence from seizure to presentation in court. In drug-related cases, this is crucial because the dangerous drug itself forms the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. The Court has consistently held that the prosecution must account for each link in the chain, as underscored in People v. Cervantes:

As a mode 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. In context, this would ideally include testimony about every link in the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that everyone 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. x x x.

Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165, alongside its Implementing Rules and Regulations, lays out the mandatory procedures for handling seized drugs, which includes physical inventory and photography immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and an elected public official. The Implementing Rules and Regulations provide some leeway, stating 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:

(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 the 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 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, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items.

However, the Court emphasized that leniency is granted only when non-compliance is justified AND the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Any deviation from the established procedure must be justified, and it cannot compromise the integrity of the confiscated items.

In this case, the prosecution’s failure to account for key links proved fatal. SPO4 Cardona, the poseur-buyer, testified that after confiscating the drugs, he marked them at the PDEA office, and then, together with another officer, attempted to deliver them to the crime laboratory. Unable to do so that night due to the absence of a chemist, he returned to the PDEA office. Crucially, Cardona admitted that the following day, he did not personally deliver the drugs to the crime laboratory, stating, “It was member of the PDEA and CIDG who brought said request and alleged shabu to the Crime Laboratory.”

Furthermore, Cardona testified that he turned over the seized items to “Captain Vargas” at the PDEA office. Yet, Captain Vargas did not testify, leaving a significant gap in the chain of custody. The laboratory request indicated that “PO2 Zamora” delivered the items, but he too was not presented as a witness. The forensic chemist, P/Insp. Clemen, confirmed receiving the specimens from a receiving clerk, who in turn received them from a PDEA representative, but the specific identity of that PDEA representative remained unknown.

These inconsistencies and missing links raised substantial doubts about the integrity of the evidence. As the Court noted, “These are crucial missing links in this case which should have been clearly accounted for in order to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.” Additionally, the delay in delivering the seized items to the crime laboratory until the day after the buy-bust operation further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Court concluded that the reasonable doubt created by these gaps necessitated strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The absence of physical inventory, photographs, and representatives from the media or DOJ at the time of seizure, coupled with the unexplained breaks in the chain of custody, led to the acquittal of the accused. The Court reiterated that proving the corpus delicti requires moral certainty that the presented drugs are the same as those seized. Failure to establish this certainty mandates acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

The significance of this case lies in its emphasis on meticulous adherence to chain of custody procedures. This ruling serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies about the importance of properly documenting and preserving evidence in drug-related cases. It underscores that the failure to account for each link in the chain of custody can have severe consequences, potentially leading to the acquittal of guilty parties. By strictly enforcing these procedures, the justice system aims to balance the fight against drug trafficking with the protection of individual rights.

In practical terms, this case highlights the accused’s rights during the handling of seized items. It emphasizes the importance of having a clear record of who handled the evidence, when they handled it, and what condition the evidence was in at each step. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody, ensuring that the presented evidence is indeed the same substance seized from the accused. In the absence of such proof, the scales of justice must tilt in favor of the accused, safeguarding their constitutional rights.

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, ensuring that the substance presented in court was the same one confiscated from the accused.
What is the chain of custody?	The chain of custody refers to the documented process of tracking evidence from its seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring its integrity and identity. It involves recording every person who handled the evidence, along with the dates and conditions of transfer.
What does RA 9165 say about handling seized drugs?	RA 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, specifies the procedures for handling seized drugs, including immediate physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused and representatives from the media, DOJ, and elected public officials.
Why is the chain of custody so important in drug cases?	The chain of custody is crucial because the dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused.
What happens if there are gaps in the chain of custody?	Gaps in the chain of custody create reasonable doubt about the integrity of the evidence. If the prosecution cannot account for each link in the chain, the court may rule the evidence inadmissible, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Who has the burden of proving the chain of custody?	The prosecution bears the burden of proving an unbroken chain of custody. They must present credible evidence demonstrating that the seized items were properly handled and preserved from the time of seizure to the time of trial.
What was the critical error in this case?	The critical error was the prosecution’s failure to present key witnesses who handled the seized drugs between the buy-bust operation and the delivery to the crime laboratory. The lack of testimony from “Captain Vargas” and PO2 Zamora created substantial gaps.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to chain of custody procedures in drug cases. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies that failure to properly document and preserve evidence can lead to acquittal.
Can non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 be excused?	Yes, but only if there is justifiable ground for non-compliance AND the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Both conditions must be met.

In conclusion, People v. Viterbo underscores the critical importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody in drug-related cases. The acquittal of the accused serves as a potent reminder that procedural safeguards must be strictly observed to protect individual rights and ensure 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. Viterbo, G.R. No. 203434, July 23, 2014