In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Anastacio Hementiza y Dela Cruz of drug-related charges, emphasizing the critical importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized evidence. This decision underscores that the prosecution must establish with moral certainty the identity and integrity of the drugs from the moment of confiscation to their presentation in court. The Court found that the prosecution’s failure to meticulously document and preserve the evidence created reasonable doubt, thus protecting the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent. This case serves as a reminder to law enforcement of the stringent procedures required in handling drug evidence to ensure fair trials and uphold justice.

From Buy-Bust to Bust: When Procedural Lapses Undermine Drug Convictions

The case began with a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers in Antipolo City, leading to the arrest of Anastacio Hementiza y Dela Cruz for allegedly selling and possessing shabu. Following his arrest, Hementiza was charged with violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution presented testimonies from the arresting officers and the forensic chemist to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs. Hementiza, however, maintained his innocence, claiming he was merely playing billiards when he was apprehended without any illegal substances found on his person. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Hementiza, but the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the conviction.

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision lies the concept of corpus delicti, which, in drug cases, refers to the actual dangerous drug itself. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must irrefutably prove that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused. This is because illegal drugs are easily susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution, as the Court explained in People v. Alcuizar:

The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved.

To ensure the integrity of the evidence, the law requires a strict chain of custody, which is defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, as:

Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

The Supreme Court, referencing Mallillin v. People, elucidated the significance of the chain of custody, describing it as “a method of authenticating evidence.” This involves providing testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence. Each person who handled the exhibit must describe how and from whom it was received, where it was, what happened to it while in their possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 outlines specific procedures for handling seized items in drug cases. This includes immediate physical inventory and photographing of the drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These individuals are required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Furthermore, the seized items must be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory within 24 hours for examination.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 recognizes that strict compliance is not always possible, providing a saving clause. However, this clause applies only when non-compliance is justified and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with these safeguards in Hementiza’s case. No inventory of the seized items was made, nor were they photographed in accordance with the law.

The Court further identified critical lapses in the chain of custody, drawing from the framework established in People v. Dahil. The prosecution must establish four key links: the seizure and marking of the drug by the apprehending officer, the turnover of the drug to the investigating officer, the turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist, and the submission of the marked drug to the court. In Hementiza’s case, the marking of the seized drugs was not done immediately at the place of seizure but later at the PDEA office, without any justifiable reason. There was no evidence presented that the marking was done in the presence of the accused or his representatives.

Moreover, the Incident Report and Affidavit of Arrest failed to mention the specific markings made on the seized items. From the place of seizure to the PDEA office, the seized items were unmarked, making it impossible to determine how they were transported and who took custody of them during transit. The testimony of the arresting officer, PO2 Rache E. Palconit, did not offer sufficient explanation for these lapses. The Supreme Court noted the prosecution’s lack of diligence in ensuring the conviction of the accused.

The identity of the investigating officer to whom Palconit supposedly turned over the seized drugs was also unknown. It was unclear who received the seized items at the forensic laboratory. These ambiguities raised serious doubts about whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs had been preserved. Fabros, the forensic chemist, testified that their office received the request for laboratory examination, but she did not affix her signature to the request, and neither Palconit nor Fabros identified each other as the person who delivered and received the seized drugs, respectively. Thus, the Court found serious gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

The saving clause in Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165, could not remedy the lapses, as the prosecution failed to recognize the procedural errors and offer justifiable grounds. In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The Court concluded that the totality of the evidence presented did not support a finding of guilt with the certainty that criminal cases require. The procedural lapses in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of Anastacio Hementiza y Dela Cruz.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to do so, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
What is “chain of custody” in drug cases?	Chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of individuals who handled the evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence by tracking its movement and custody.
Why is chain of custody important?	It is critical to ensure that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused and to prevent tampering, alteration, or substitution. A broken chain of custody can cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence.
What are the required steps in the chain of custody?	The required steps include the seizure and marking of the drug, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and submission to the court. Each step must be properly documented.
What happens if there are lapses in the chain of custody?	Lapses can lead to the inadmissibility of the evidence and the acquittal of the accused, especially if the prosecution fails to justify the non-compliance and preserve the integrity of the seized items. The saving clause in the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses and cited justifiable grounds.
What is the role of the forensic chemist?	The forensic chemist examines the seized substance to determine its nature and composition. Their testimony is crucial in establishing that the substance is indeed a prohibited drug.
What is corpus delicti in drug cases?	In drug cases, corpus delicti refers to the actual dangerous drug itself. The prosecution must prove its existence beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
What specific lapses did the Supreme Court find in this case?	The Court noted several lapses, including the marking of drugs not done immediately at the place of seizure, no inventory, and photograph were done in accordance with law, failure to identify the investigating officer, and no clear turnover of the seized drugs to the forensic chemist.
What is the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court’s decision acquits the accused, Anastacio Hementiza y Dela Cruz. It also reinforces the importance of strict adherence to chain of custody procedures in drug cases.

This case reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the constitutional rights of the accused and ensuring that law enforcement follows proper procedures in drug cases. The meticulous attention to detail regarding the chain of custody demonstrates the high standard of proof required for conviction in drug-related offenses. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder to law enforcement agencies of the necessity of strict compliance with procedural safeguards to maintain the integrity of evidence and uphold justice.

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 v. Anastacio Hementiza y Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017