In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Gerald Tamayo Cordova and Marcial Dayon Eguiso, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. The court emphasized that strict adherence to the procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is crucial to maintain the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. This decision underscores the importance of the chain of custody rule in safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring fair trials in drug-related cases, particularly regarding the presence of mandatory witnesses.

When Oversight Undermines Justice: A Drug Case Dismissed

The case revolves around a buy-bust operation conducted by the City Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation Task Group (CAID-SOTG) in Bacolod City. Based on information that Gerald Tamayo Cordova, also known as Bobot Cordova, was allegedly selling illegal drugs, the CAID-SOTG planned an operation. Cordova and Marcial Dayon Eguiso were subsequently apprehended, leading to charges of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Cordova guilty of both offenses, while Eguiso was convicted of illegal possession. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. However, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings, acquitting both accused-appellants.

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision lies the **chain of custody rule**, enshrined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. This rule outlines the procedure that law enforcement officers must follow when handling seized drugs to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. The law requires, among other things, that immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or their representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.

The Supreme Court identified several critical deviations from this procedure in the case. First, Eguiso, one of the accused-appellants, was not present during the photography of the seized items. PO3 Sebastian, a member of the apprehending team, admitted that this was an “oversight.” The Court found this explanation insufficient, emphasizing that such a lapse cannot be excused as a mere technicality. According to the ruling, “It is well-settled that the procedure in Section 21[, Article II] of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. Therefore, it must be shown that earnest efforts were exerted by the police officers involved to comply with the mandated procedure so as to convince the Court that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances.”

Second, the records did not show that representatives from the DOJ and the media were present during the inventory and photography of the seized items. The Court noted a lack of evidence indicating that the police officers even attempted to contact and secure these witnesses. This absence of mandatory witnesses further weakened the prosecution’s case and raised doubts about the integrity of the seized evidence.

Finally, the chain of custody was tainted by irregular circumstances regarding the handling of the seized items. The apprehension occurred on April 8, 2005, but the items were not delivered to the crime laboratory until April 11, 2005 – three days later. PO3 Sebastian explained that there was no chemist present on the afternoon of April 8, a Friday. However, despite an existing agreement between the crime laboratory and the police drug unit to address apprehensions made on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, the police officers did not follow the protocol. Instead, the seized items were stored in PO3 Sebastian’s locker, without adequate measures to ensure their integrity during the interim. These series of lapses, the Court declared, were enough to warrant acquittal.

In her Separate Concurring Opinion, Justice Peralta, echoed the importance of the procedure to be followed and emphasized the need to amend RA 9165, highlighting the difficulty of compliance with the witness rule. She stated that “the apprehending team was required to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the drugs after their seizure and confiscation in the presence of no less than three (3) witnesses, namely: (a) a representative from the media, and (b) the DOJ, and; (c) any elected public official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given copy thereof. The presence of the three witnesses was intended as a guarantee against planting of evidence and frame up, as they were ‘necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity.’”

The Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the chain of custody rule. In People v. Mendoza, the Court stressed that “[w]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, ‘planting’ or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [RA] 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) 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. Indeed, the x x x presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.”

The Supreme Court acknowledged the government’s efforts to combat drug addiction but underscored the paramount importance of protecting individual liberties, even those accused of crimes. The Court reiterated that prosecutors have a positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165. They must proactively acknowledge and justify any deviations from the procedure during the trial. Moreover, 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.

The decision in People vs. Cordova and Eguiso serves as a stark reminder of the critical role that the chain of custody plays in drug cases. It highlights the need for law enforcement officers to adhere strictly to the procedures outlined in RA 9165 to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs. It also stresses the importance of the presence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized items to protect the rights of the accused and prevent abuses. By meticulously scrutinizing the prosecution’s evidence and identifying unjustified deviations from the prescribed procedures, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding justice and safeguarding individual liberties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the documented and unbroken transfer of evidence. This is to ensure its integrity from the time of seizure to its presentation in court.
Who are the mandatory witnesses required during the inventory and photography of seized drugs?	Under the original provision of Section 21 of RA 9165, the mandatory witnesses are a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official.
Why is the presence of mandatory witnesses important?	The presence of these witnesses is intended to ensure transparency and prevent the planting, switching, or contamination of evidence. They safeguard the rights of the accused.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are compromised, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused.
What are justifiable grounds for non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165?	Justifiable grounds must be proven as a fact and may include situations where the attendance of witnesses is impossible due to remoteness, safety concerns, or the involvement of elected officials in the crime.
What is the role of the prosecutor in ensuring compliance with the chain of custody rule?	The prosecutor has a positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure. This includes acknowledging and justifying any deviations from the procedure during the trial.
What is the effect of RA 10640 on the witness requirement?	RA 10640, amending Section 21 of RA 9165, now requires only two witnesses: an elected public official and either a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media.
What if the seized items were not delivered immediately to the crime lab?	The police must provide reasonable explanation, otherwise, this may put the chain of custody into question. The police must ensure security measure to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are secured.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the critical importance of strictly adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug cases. This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies that procedural lapses can have significant consequences, potentially leading to the acquittal of accused individuals. The meticulous preservation of evidence and the protection of individual rights remain paramount in the pursuit 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 OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. GERALD TAMAYO CORDOVA AND MARCIAL DAYON EGUISO, G.R. No. 231130, July 09, 2018