In People v. Calibod, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. This ruling underscores the critical importance of adhering to the strict procedural requirements outlined in Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), as amended by RA 10640, to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of drug evidence. The court emphasized that failure to comply with these procedures, without justifiable grounds, casts doubt on the corpus delicti, leading to acquittal.

Did Police Lapses Break the Chain? A Question of Drug Evidence Integrity

This case revolves around the arrest and conviction of Niño Calibod y Henobeso for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, specifically shabu. The prosecution presented evidence indicating a buy-bust operation where Calibod allegedly sold a plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a poseur buyer, PO2 Oruga. Calibod, however, maintained his innocence, claiming a frame-up and denial. The key legal question centered on whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody for the seized drug, ensuring its integrity from seizure to presentation in court.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the procedural aspects of the buy-bust operation and subsequent handling of the seized evidence. The Court emphasized the necessity of proving the identity of the prohibited drug with moral certainty, considering it forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. To achieve this, an unbroken chain of custody must be demonstrated, accounting for each link from seizure to presentation in court. As the Court held in Dela Riva v. People, 769 Phil. 872 (2015), the chain of custody is divided into four links: seizure and marking, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and turnover to the court.

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the mandatory procedure for handling seized drugs, designed to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. This section requires, among other things, that immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. These individuals are required to sign the inventory copies and receive a copy. This requirement aims to prevent tampering, switching, or planting of evidence, which have historically plagued drug cases. The court in People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749 (2014) stressed the importance of these witnesses:

“[w]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, ‘planting’ or contamination of the evidence…again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.”

While strict adherence to the prescribed procedure is ideal, the Court acknowledges that field conditions may not always allow for perfect compliance. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, as well as RA 10640, provide a saving clause, stating that non-compliance will not render the seizure and custody void if justifiable grounds exist and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. This means the prosecution must demonstrate both a justifiable reason for the non-compliance and the measures taken to ensure the evidence remained untainted.

In this case, the Court found that the police officers failed to justify the gaps in the chain of custody. Specifically, the prosecution did not establish whether the required inventory and photography were properly conducted with the necessary witnesses present. PO2 Oruga’s testimony indicated that he immediately proceeded to the crime laboratory after marking the seized shabu, without mentioning the presence of Calibod, an elected public official, or representatives from the DOJ or media during the marking. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to show that a physical inventory and photography were conducted at the place of arrest or the nearest police station, in the presence of the required witnesses. The court emphasized in People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637 (2010), that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

Moreover, the Court noted deficiencies in the second and third links of the chain. There was no evidence that the confiscated shabu was initially turned over to an investigating officer before being submitted to the crime laboratory. The prosecution also failed to provide details regarding how the specimen was received at the crime laboratory, who received it on behalf of the laboratory, and how it was handled and preserved before FCO Huelgas conducted the examination. These omissions created further doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence. According to PO2 Oruga, “After he was examined, I left the money including the plastic sachet with methamphetamine hydrochloride and brought the accused to the police station, sir.”

The cumulative effect of these procedural lapses led the Court to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. Because the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the non-compliance, the Court acquitted Calibod. In line with established jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that the procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be disregarded as a mere technicality. The court acknowledged the government’s efforts against drug addiction, but it stressed that the protection of individual liberties remains paramount. The Court concluded, “Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the individual in the name of order. For indeed, order is too high a price for the loss of liberty.”

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, ensuring its integrity and admissibility as evidence. The Supreme Court found the chain of custody was compromised due to procedural lapses by the police.
What is the ‘chain of custody’ in drug cases?	The ‘chain of custody’ refers to the documented process of tracking seized evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring its integrity and preventing tampering. It involves meticulously recording each transfer and handling of the evidence.
What are the key steps in the chain of custody under RA 9165?	Key steps include: seizure and marking of the drug, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist, and submission of the marked illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court. Each step must be properly documented and witnessed.
What happens if the police fail to follow the required procedures?	Failure to comply with the procedures outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence. Unless the prosecution provides justifiable reasons for the non-compliance and proves the evidence was properly preserved, the case against the accused may be weakened, potentially leading to acquittal.
What is the role of witnesses in the chain of custody?	Witnesses, including representatives from the media, the DOJ, and elected public officials, are required to be present during the inventory and photography of seized drugs. Their presence aims to ensure transparency and prevent the planting or tampering of evidence.
What is the significance of marking the seized drugs?	Marking the seized drugs immediately after seizure helps to identify the specific item as the one connected to the accused. It establishes a clear link between the drug and the alleged crime, making it a crucial step in the chain of custody.
What is the saving clause in RA 9165?	The saving clause allows for non-compliance with the strict procedures under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must prove both the justifiable reason and the preservation of integrity.
Why was the accused acquitted in this case?	The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. There were unjustified gaps in the procedure, casting doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.

The People v. Calibod case serves as a potent reminder of the stringent requirements for handling drug evidence in the Philippines. Law enforcement agencies must meticulously adhere to the procedures outlined in RA 9165 and its IRR, ensuring that the chain of custody remains unbroken. Failure to do so can have serious consequences, potentially undermining the prosecution’s case and leading to the acquittal 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. Calibod, G.R. No. 230230, November 20, 2017