In the case of People of the Philippines v. Randy Rollo y Lagasca, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the illegal sale of shabu, a dangerous drug. The Court emphasized that while strict adherence to the chain of custody rule is vital, non-compliance with certain procedural requirements does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of evidence, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. This ruling underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases, while acknowledging that minor deviations from prescribed procedures may be acceptable under justifiable circumstances.

Drug Busts and Broken Chains: When Does Non-Compliance Undermine Conviction?

The case began with a tip that Randy Rollo was selling drugs, leading to a buy-bust operation. PO1 Ayad, acting as the poseur-buyer, purchased two sachets of shabu from Rollo in exchange for P500.00. After a pre-arranged signal, the back-up team arrested Rollo, and the marked money and another sachet of shabu were recovered from him. The seized items were marked and sent to the crime laboratory, where forensic analysis confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Rollo denied the charges, claiming he was merely present when someone else bought drugs. The trial court convicted Rollo, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court. At the heart of the appeal was whether the prosecution adequately proved the elements of illegal sale and whether the police properly handled the evidence.

The Supreme Court reiterated that in prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. In this case, the Court found that all elements were sufficiently proven. PO3 Verdadero and PO1 Ayad provided detailed accounts of the buy-bust operation, including the exchange of money for the drugs. The forensic chemist’s report confirmed that the seized plastic sachets contained shabu. The Court emphasized the importance of the chain of custody rule, designed to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items.

Appellant Rollo argued that the police officers failed to strictly follow the procedures outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, particularly regarding the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The law states:

(1) The apprehending 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.

However, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 provide a crucial proviso, stating 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.” The Supreme Court has consistently held that the primary concern is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, which must be proven to establish the corpus delicti, the body of the crime.

In this case, the Court found that while the markings of the seized items were done at the police station, this was sufficient compliance with the rules on the chain of custody. According to jurisprudence, marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. The Court also noted that any inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers regarding minor details did not affect the substance of their declarations or the weight of their testimony. Such minor inconsistencies can even enhance their veracity, as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.

To further emphasize the importance of establishing the chain of custody, the Court referred to the appellate court’s discussion of the links that must be established:

first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

The Court found that the prosecution had sufficiently established every link in the chain of custody. The seized items were marked, turned over to the investigating officer, then to the forensic chemist for examination, and finally presented in court. PSI Jebie Timario testified that the items shown to her were the same items she received from Pereja. PO3 Verdadero also confirmed that the items presented in court were the same items seized during the buy-bust operation. The absence of any missing link in the chain of custody and the lack of any showing that substantial or relevant facts bearing on the elements of the crime had been misapplied or overlooked led the Court to accord full credence to the trial court’s factual assessment.

The Court dismissed Rollo’s defense of alibi and denial, stating that they could not prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the presentation of the corpus delicti. The Court concluded that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Rollo sold shabu, thereby violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court upheld the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, finding no reason to disturb the lower courts’ unanimous finding of guilt.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved the illegal sale of drugs beyond reasonable doubt, considering alleged lapses in following the chain of custody rule.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule ensures the integrity of evidence by requiring documentation of the seizure, transfer, and handling of evidence to prevent contamination or substitution. It is crucial in drug cases to ensure that the substance tested in the laboratory is the same substance seized from the accused.
What did Section 21 of R.A. 9165 require?	Section 21 required the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). These representatives were required to sign the inventory.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically render the seizure invalid if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The focus is on maintaining the integrity of the evidence.
Why was the marking of the drugs at the police station considered acceptable?	The Court held that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, making the police station an acceptable place for the initial marking.
What elements must be proven to establish the illegal sale of dangerous drugs?	The prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object (the drugs), and the consideration (payment), as well as the delivery of the drugs and the payment.
Can minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies affect the outcome of the case?	Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies, especially on collateral matters, do not necessarily affect the substance of their declarations or the weight of their testimony. These inconsistencies can even enhance the veracity of the testimonies.
What penalty did the accused receive?	The accused, Randy Rollo, received a penalty of life imprisonment and was ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Rollo offers important guidance on the application of the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. It clarifies that while strict compliance with procedural requirements is desirable, it is not always mandatory, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. This ruling balances the need for procedural rigor with the practical realities of law enforcement, ensuring that drug offenders are held accountable while protecting the rights of the accused.

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. Rollo, G.R. No. 211199, March 25, 2015