In the Philippines, convictions for drug-related offenses hinge on the integrity of evidence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the prosecution bears the crucial responsibility of demonstrating an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs. This means meticulously tracking the evidence from the moment of confiscation to its presentation in court. When the prosecution fails to adequately justify lapses or gaps in this chain, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, safeguarding their constitutional rights and upholding the principles of due process.

Nanding Bakulaw’s Ordeal: When Missing Photos and Justice Delayed Meant Freedom Secured

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Fernando Geronimo y Agustine, alias “Nanding Bakulaw,” revolves around an alleged buy-bust operation where Geronimo was accused of selling shabu, a prohibited drug, to a poseur-buyer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court (SC) reversed these rulings, acquitting Geronimo due to significant breaches in the chain of custody of the seized drug. This detailed analysis will explore the factual background, the legal framework surrounding chain of custody, the Court’s reasoning, and the broader implications of this decision for drug-related cases in the Philippines.

The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of police officers who claimed to have conducted a buy-bust operation based on information received from a confidential informant. PO1 Janet Sabo acted as the poseur-buyer, allegedly purchasing a sachet of shabu from Geronimo using marked money. Geronimo was arrested, and the seized substance was later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized the procedures followed by the police officers in handling the seized evidence, revealing critical shortcomings.

The concept of chain of custody is paramount in drug-related cases. It ensures the integrity and identity of the seized drug, preventing contamination, alteration, or substitution. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) outline the specific procedures that law enforcement officers must follow. These procedures include immediate marking of the seized drug, physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused or their representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These individuals are required to sign the inventory, receiving a copy thereof.

In Geronimo’s case, the Supreme Court identified several lapses in the chain of custody. Most notably, no photograph of the seized shabu was taken at the place of arrest or later at the police station. Such a photograph would have served as visual documentation of the evidence, bolstering its credibility. Furthermore, while PO1 Sabo claimed to have placed her initials on the sachet, this act was not documented with a photograph. Critically, no elected official, member of the media, or representative from the DOJ was present during the seizure and inventory of the drug.

The IRR of Republic Act No. 9165 provides a “saving mechanism” that allows for non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution must provide a fitting explanation for any lapse or gap in compliance. In this case, the prosecution failed to offer any explanation for the absence of photographs or the lack of third-party witnesses.

The Court underscored the importance of each step in the chain of custody, stating that the absence of a credible explanation for any deviation casts doubt on the identity and integrity of the evidence. The Court quoted Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165:

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:

(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;

The Court also cited its previous rulings, highlighting the State’s burden of proving the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. The court stated:

In every prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu prohibited under Republic Act No. 9165, the State carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense, failing in which the State would not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If the State does not establish the corpus delicti, such as when the dangerous drug subject of the prosecution is missing, or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court, then the crime is not established beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team raised serious doubts about the identity and integrity of the shabu presented as evidence against Geronimo. These lapses highlighted the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, leading to the accused’s acquittal. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered Geronimo’s immediate release, underscoring the importance of adhering to strict procedural safeguards in drug-related cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized shabu, a crucial requirement for conviction in drug-related cases. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to do so, leading to the accused’s acquittal.
What is the chain of custody?	The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of individuals who handled the seized drug, from the moment of confiscation to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence, preventing contamination, alteration, or substitution.
What are the required steps in the chain of custody?	The required steps include immediate marking of the seized drug, physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused or their representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These individuals must sign the inventory, receiving a copy thereof.
What happens if there are lapses in the chain of custody?	Lapses in the chain of custody can cast doubt on the integrity and identity of the evidence. The prosecution must provide a justifiable explanation for any non-compliance with the required procedures.
What is the “saving mechanism” under the law?	The “saving mechanism” allows for non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, the prosecution must provide a credible explanation for the lapse.
Why was the accused acquitted in this case?	The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. There were no photographs of the seized drug, and no third-party witnesses were present during the seizure and inventory.
What is the significance of this case?	This case reinforces the importance of adhering to strict procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. It highlights the prosecution’s burden of proving an unbroken chain of custody and the consequences of failing to do so.
Can a conviction be secured if the chain of custody is not perfectly followed?	While strict compliance is ideal, the “saving mechanism” allows for some flexibility if the prosecution can credibly explain any lapses and demonstrate that the integrity of the evidence was preserved. However, unexplained deviations can lead to acquittal.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Fernando Geronimo case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of due process and the protection of individual rights. By strictly enforcing the chain of custody requirements, the Court ensures that individuals are not unjustly convicted based on unreliable or compromised evidence. This decision underscores the need for law enforcement officers to meticulously follow the prescribed procedures in drug-related cases, safeguarding the integrity of the evidence and upholding the principles of 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 v. Geronimo, G.R. No. 180447, August 23, 2017