In People v. Diputado, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to a compromised chain of custody in handling seized drugs. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the integrity and identity of the seized drugs beyond reasonable doubt. This ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused and ensure fair trials.

Faded Markings, Faded Justice: How a Botched Drug Bust Led to Freedom

The case revolves around Rommel Diputado’s arrest for allegedly selling methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, during a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented evidence that Diputado sold the drugs to a police poseur-buyer in exchange for P24,000. However, Diputado contested the charges, arguing that the integrity of the seized drugs was compromised due to lapses in the chain of custody. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) initially convicted Diputado, but the Supreme Court ultimately reversed these decisions.

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision is Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” This section outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs to maintain their integrity as evidence. The law stipulates that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These individuals are required to sign the inventory, ensuring transparency and accountability.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 further elaborate on this process, specifying that the inventory and photography should ideally occur at the place where the search warrant is served or, in cases of warrantless arrests, at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. The rules also acknowledge that strict compliance may not always be possible due to justifiable grounds. However, it emphasizes that non-compliance should not automatically invalidate the seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

Sec. 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:
(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;

In Diputado, the Supreme Court found critical lapses in the chain of custody. The most significant flaw was the delayed marking of the seized drugs. PO1 Estares, the poseur-buyer, admitted that he did not mark the sachet of shabu immediately after the arrest, nor did he mark it at the barangay captain’s house where the initial listing of evidence occurred. Instead, he only marked the item with his initials “RDM” at the RSAC-TF office. The court emphasized that “marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link” and that succeeding handlers of the evidence rely on these markings for reference.

The court highlighted the importance of proper marking, stating:

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 the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.

The Supreme Court also noted discrepancies in the documentation of the seized drugs. The Receipt of Confiscated or Seized Articles and the Complaint-Affidavit executed by the arresting officers did not mention any markings on the seized item. Moreover, the Inventory of Confiscated or Seized Articles did not reflect the marking “RDM.” Adding to the confusion, the Forensic Chemist mentioned an additional marking, “RGE,” on the plastic sachet, which was not explained by any of the prosecution witnesses. The unexplained presence of “RGE” raised serious questions about the integrity of the evidence and the possibility of tampering.

The prosecution’s failure to present PO3 Holleza, who allegedly received the Request for Laboratory Examination, further weakened their case. PO3 Holleza could have shed light on the additional marking and clarified the chain of custody. The Supreme Court concluded that these procedural lapses created a reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same drugs seized from Diputado.

The Supreme Court further clarified that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by police officers does not automatically validate their actions, especially when there is reason to doubt the integrity of the evidence. The Court asserted that this presumption cannot outweigh the fundamental right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, the Supreme Court had no choice but to acquit Diputado.

In cases involving illegal drugs, establishing the chain of custody is crucial. Any gaps or inconsistencies can raise doubts about the integrity and identity of the evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. This standard is in place to prevent contamination, alteration, or substitution of the substance seized, ensuring that the accused is fairly tried based on reliable evidence. When the chain of custody is compromised, the foundation of the prosecution’s case crumbles.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, ensuring the integrity and identity of the evidence presented in court.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	The chain of custody is crucial to prevent tampering, alteration, or substitution of the seized drugs. It ensures that the substance presented in court is the same one confiscated from the accused.
What are the key steps in maintaining the chain of custody?	The key steps include immediate marking of the seized drugs, proper documentation of each transfer of custody, and presentation of the evidence in court with clear identification of the handlers.
What was the primary reason for Diputado’s acquittal?	Diputado was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody. There were discrepancies in the documentation and unexplained markings on the seized drugs.
What is the significance of marking the seized drugs immediately after arrest?	Immediate marking is essential because it serves as the starting point in the custodial link. It allows succeeding handlers to use the markings for reference and prevents confusion or substitution.
What is the role of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties?	The presumption of regularity applies to police officers. However, it does not outweigh the accused’s right to be presumed innocent. When there are doubts about the integrity of the evidence, the presumption cannot sustain a conviction.
What is the effect of non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, it raises concerns and requires the prosecution to provide sufficient justification for the deviation.
Why was the failure to present PO3 Holleza significant?	PO3 Holleza could have shed light on the additional marking “RGE” on the seized item, which was not explained by any other witness. His absence created a break in the chain of custody.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of strictly adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in R.A. No. 9165. Law enforcement agencies must ensure that every step in the chain of custody is meticulously documented and followed to safeguard the integrity of drug evidence. Failure to do so can have dire consequences, potentially leading to the acquittal of guilty individuals and undermining the fight against illegal drugs.

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. Diputado, G.R. No. 213922, July 5, 2017