In People v. Del Mundo, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. This means the prosecution did not sufficiently prove that the drugs presented in court were the same ones confiscated from the accused, raising doubts about the integrity of the evidence. The ruling highlights the critical importance of adhering to strict procedural requirements in handling drug evidence to protect individual rights against potential abuses.

Drugs, Doubts, and Deliverance: When Evidence Falls Short

This case revolves around Jefferson and Mitos Del Mundo, who were charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Calapan City Police Station Intelligence Team. The prosecution presented testimonies from several police officers, including the poseur-buyer, forensic chemist, and members of the buy-bust team, to establish the guilt of the accused. However, the Supreme Court found significant lapses in the handling of the evidence, ultimately leading to the acquittal of both accused.

At the heart of this case lies the **chain of custody rule**, a fundamental principle in Philippine drug cases. This rule ensures that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs are preserved from the moment of confiscation until they are presented as evidence in court. The chain of custody is crucial because it safeguards against tampering, substitution, or any other form of alteration that could compromise the reliability of the evidence. According to the Court, the chain of custody is established through:

testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would be able to describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.

In drug-related cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden extends to establishing the identity of the dangerous drug, ensuring that the substance confiscated from the accused is the same substance presented in court. Failure to do so can be fatal to the prosecution’s case, as it raises doubts about the very foundation of the charges. The requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) should be strictly observed. This section stipulates that:

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 this case, the Court found several deviations from the prescribed procedure. The inventory of the confiscated items was undated, failing to meet the requirement that it be made immediately after seizure. Furthermore, the persons required to sign the inventory, as enumerated under the law, were not made to sign it. Instead, a certain Ocampo, Sr., who was not a representative of the accused, the media, or the Department of Justice, and neither was he an elected public official, signed the inventory. The photographs allegedly taken of the accused-appellants and the confiscated items were not presented in court, and no explanation was offered for their absence. These procedural lapses raised serious questions about the integrity of the evidence and the adherence to due process.

Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized that while non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically lead to acquittal, it becomes a significant factor when the chain of custody is compromised. The prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for not complying with the requirements of Section 21. The absence of the signatures of Gargullo and the accused-appellants on the inventory suggested that the physical inventory may have been conducted without their presence, in violation of the law. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also presented inconsistencies. SPO2 Espiritu testified that he had custody of the four sachets of shabu from the toilet bowl to the police station, while PO3 Rodil claimed that SPO2 Espiritu gave her the sachets after their retrieval. This discrepancy created confusion and uncertainty regarding the person who had custody of the sachets, further casting doubt on the identity and integrity of the items.

The case against the accused for illegal sale of drugs was further weakened by the prosecution’s failure to present the sachet marked with the initials “YEL” in court. The corpus delicti, which is the body or substance of the crime, must be presented in court to secure a conviction. Since the sachet marked as “YEL” was not presented, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for this particular item. The High Court emphasized that in cases of illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must prove: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. However, since the corpus delicti was not properly presented, the accused-appellants were acquitted.

Concerning the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had left serious gaps in the chain of custody. SPO2 Espiritu and SPO1 Buhay provided conflicting accounts regarding the number of sachets containing white crystalline substances retrieved from the toilet bowl. SPO2 Espiritu claimed that four sachets contained the substance, while SPO1 Buhay testified that only one sachet contained it. This inconsistency was deemed critical to establishing a reliable chain of custody of the drug specimens. Considering these discrepancies and the prosecution’s failure to comply with the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted the accused-appellants.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, as required by law, to ensure the integrity and identity of the evidence.
What is the ‘chain of custody’ rule?	The ‘chain of custody’ rule refers to the method of authenticating evidence, requiring that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It ensures the integrity and identity of the seized drugs from confiscation to presentation in court.
What are the critical steps in the chain of custody?	The four critical steps are: (1) seizure and marking of the drug; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist; and (4) turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.
What is the significance of Section 21 of R.A. 9165?	Section 21 of R.A. 9165 outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs, including physical inventory and photography of the same in the presence of the accused and other representatives. It is designed to prevent tampering or substitution of evidence.
Why were the accused acquitted in this case?	The accused were acquitted because the prosecution failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and could not establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs.
What specific lapses did the police commit in handling the evidence?	The police failed to properly document the inventory of the seized items, did not have the required individuals sign the inventory, and presented inconsistent testimonies regarding the custody and handling of the drugs.
What is the ‘corpus delicti’ in a drug case?	The ‘corpus delicti’ is the body or substance of the crime, which in a drug case refers to the seized illegal drugs themselves. Its presentation and proper identification in court are essential for a conviction.
What happens if the prosecution fails to present the ‘corpus delicti’?	If the prosecution fails to present the ‘corpus delicti’ or fails to establish its integrity through an unbroken chain of custody, the accused cannot be convicted of the drug-related offense.
Can procedural lapses in drug cases be excused?	While minor lapses may be excused if justified, substantial deviations from the prescribed procedure that compromise the integrity of the evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

This case underscores the importance of meticulous adherence to legal procedures in handling drug evidence. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies that strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is essential to ensure the integrity of evidence and protect 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. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 208095, September 20, 2017