In illegal drug cases, the integrity of the evidence is paramount. The Supreme Court held in this case that while strict adherence to the chain of custody rule outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) is preferred, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. This ruling underscores the importance of proving that the substance presented in court is the same one confiscated from the accused, safeguarding against potential abuse and ensuring fair trials.

From Buy-Bust to Bust: How a Marijuana Case Hinged on Evidence Handling

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Michael Ros y Ortega, Rodolfo Justo, Jr. y Califlores, and David Navarro y Minas arose from two separate buy-bust operations conducted by the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Team (PAID-SOT) in Laoag City. Acting on information, the police operatives first targeted David Navarro and Michael Ros, allegedly selling a kilogram of marijuana. Shortly after, they conducted another operation against Rodolfo Justo, Jr., for selling a smaller quantity of the same drug. The three individuals were subsequently charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which prohibits the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals.

At trial, the prosecution presented evidence detailing the buy-bust operations, the arrest of the appellants, and the laboratory examination confirming that the seized substances were indeed marijuana. The defense, on the other hand, denied the charges, claiming inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers and raising doubts about the integrity of the evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the appellants, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where the primary issue revolved around whether the prosecution had successfully established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized marijuana, as required by law.

The appellants anchored their appeal on the argument that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the seized marijuana, citing alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of R.A. No. 9165. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, specifying the immediate inventory and photographing of the drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.

However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 clarify that non-compliance with these requirements does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the items, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court also acknowledged that an ideal chain of custody is often impossible to achieve in reality, stating that:

While the chain of custody should ideally be perfect and unbroken, it is not in reality “as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.”

The Supreme Court reiterated that the primary concern is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, as they constitute the corpus delicti of the crime. The Court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish a substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure, ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana.

The evidence showed that after the buy-bust operations, the police operatives immediately brought the appellants and the seized marijuana to Camp Captain Valentin S. Juan for investigation. The confiscated illegal drugs were segregated, inventoried, marked, kept, and delivered to the forensic chemist by the same officers who received them from the appellants. The poseur-buyers, PO1 Jonie Domingo and PO3 Marlon Nicolas, made the identifying marks on the marijuana seized from the possession of the appellants. On the same day, they personally delivered the illegal drugs to the Ilocos Norte Police Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. These procedures ensured the proper handling of the evidence.

Importantly, the Court noted that the appellants failed to raise the issue of chain of custody with specificity during the trial. They did not question the handling and safekeeping of the seized marijuana in a timely manner, thus failing to provide the prosecution an opportunity to present evidence to address any alleged lapses. This procedural lapse proved fatal to their defense. As the Court pointed out:

The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds that may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation x x x from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him.

The Supreme Court also highlighted the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers, stating that the appellants had the burden of proof to overcome this presumption. The appellants failed to present any evidence of bad faith, ill will, or tampering with the evidence on the part of the police officers. Since the appellants did not show any improper motive on the part of the police officers, their testimonies regarding the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were given full faith and credit.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that objections to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court has held that when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, they must state this objection. Without such objection, they cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. The appellants’ failure to question the admissibility of the evidence at the trial court level precluded them from raising it on appeal.

In this case, the requirements for a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were met. The prosecution had proved the elements of the crime and had demonstrated an adequate chain of custody of the illegal drugs, which is the corpus delicti of the offense. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of the appellants for illegal sale of marijuana.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved an unbroken chain of custody of the seized marijuana, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The appellants argued that the prosecution’s failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirements invalidated the seizure and rendered the evidence inadmissible.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule refers to the chronological documentation and tracking of seized evidence to ensure its integrity and authenticity. It requires that the seized items are properly identified, marked, stored, and transported to prevent tampering or substitution.
Does non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 automatically invalidate a drug conviction?	No, non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate a drug conviction. The Supreme Court has held that as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, the seizure remains valid, even if there are deviations from the prescribed procedure.
What is the significance of the corpus delicti in drug cases?	The corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, is the actual substance of the illegal drug involved in the case. It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the substance presented in court is the same one that was seized from the accused, thus establishing the commission of the crime.
When should an accused question the chain of custody of evidence?	An accused should question the chain of custody of evidence during the trial, at the earliest opportunity. Failure to raise this issue during trial may preclude the accused from raising it on appeal, as objections to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
What is the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties?	The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes public officials, including police officers, have performed their duties properly and in accordance with the law. The burden of proof lies with the party challenging the regularity of the official’s actions.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, it may cast doubt on the integrity and authenticity of the evidence. The court will then assess whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to overcome this doubt and establish that the evidence is still reliable.
What is the role of the forensic chemist in drug cases?	The forensic chemist plays a crucial role in drug cases by conducting laboratory examinations to determine the composition and identity of the seized substance. Their findings are used to confirm whether the substance is indeed an illegal drug.

This case underscores the critical importance of meticulously documenting and preserving the chain of custody in drug-related offenses to safeguard the integrity of evidence. While adherence to the prescribed procedures is paramount, the ultimate focus remains on ensuring that the substance presented in court is indeed the one seized from the accused, thereby upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the Philippine legal 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. Ros, G.R. No. 201146, April 15, 2015