In People v. Guanzon, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs. The Court emphasized strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, highlighting the importance of preserving the integrity and identity of drug evidence. This ruling reinforces the accused’s constitutional right to presumption of innocence, particularly in drug cases where the penalties are severe, underscoring the need for meticulous adherence to procedural safeguards.

Failing the Chain: How Inconsistent Testimony Led to Acquittal in a Drug Case

This case stemmed from an alleged buy-bust operation where Ricardo Guanzon was arrested for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution presented testimonies from police officers and forensic chemists to establish Guanzon’s guilt. However, the defense argued that the police officers failed to follow mandatory procedures for preserving the seized drugs’ integrity as outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) erred in convicting Guanzon despite the alleged non-compliance with the stringent requirements of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). Specifically, the issue revolved around the establishment of an unbroken chain of custody, which is critical for ensuring that the evidence presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused.

To understand the Court’s decision, it’s essential to grasp the concept of corpus delicti. In drug cases, the illegal drug itself is considered the corpus delicti. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance seized from the accused is indeed an illegal drug. This is where the chain of custody comes into play. The chain of custody is the sequence of continuous transfer and control of evidence, establishing its authenticity, integrity, and identity.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, details the procedure for handling seized drugs to maintain this chain of custody. The law states:

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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 provide further guidance, emphasizing the importance of marking, inventory, and photographing the seized items immediately after seizure. The presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media is required during the inventory and photography. These measures aim to prevent tampering, switching, or planting of evidence.

In Guanzon, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. Critical inconsistencies emerged in the testimonies of the police officers. PO3 Paulos testified that he turned over the confiscated drug to SPO2 Abalos, who then had possession of it up to the police station. However, SPO2 Abalos claimed that PO3 Paulos had possession of the drug during that period. This contradiction created a significant gap in the chain of custody, raising doubts about whether the drug presented in court was the same one seized from Guanzon.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to present PO2 Hernandez, the poseur-buyer, to testify on the handling of the drug he allegedly bought from Guanzon. This omission left a crucial link in the chain of custody unproven. Moreover, the Court observed that the marking of the seized drugs was not clearly established. SPO2 Abalos testified that PO2 Hernandez marked the specimens, but PO2 Hernandez did not confirm this in his testimony. The records also did not indicate where the marking took place or whether Guanzon was present during the marking.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of marking the seized drugs immediately upon arrest, in the presence of the accused. This is a critical step in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs. The Court cited People v. Alberto Gonzales y Santos, stating:

The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest…In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.

The Court also highlighted the lack of inventory and photographs of the seized drugs, which are mandatory requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. While the law allows for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, the prosecution in Guanzon failed to provide any explanation for the absence of these documents. This lack of effort to comply with the procedural safeguards further weakened the prosecution’s case.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court stressed that the prosecution bears the burden of establishing each link in the chain of custody and providing justifiable grounds for any gaps. The identity of the individual handling the seized drug and the manner of handling must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In Guanzon, the prosecution failed to meet this burden. Due to the broken links in the chain of custody and the absence of required documentation, the Court acquitted Guanzon.

In essence, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. This provision serves as a procedural safeguard against abuse by law enforcement authorities and protects the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent. The Guanzon case serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow the prescribed procedures for handling seized drugs to ensure the integrity and admissibility of evidence in court. Failing to do so can result in the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the strength of other evidence.

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, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. The Court found that the prosecution failed to do so.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody is the sequence of continuous transfer and control of evidence, establishing its authenticity, integrity, and identity. It ensures that the evidence presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused.
What are the mandatory requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the NPS or the media. The law also mandates the marking of the seized drugs.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically render the seizure void, provided that the prosecution can prove justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
What is the significance of marking the seized drugs?	Marking the seized drugs is the first step in the chain of custody. It sets apart the drugs as evidence from other materials and prevents switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
What inconsistencies were found in the testimonies of the police officers in this case?	The testimonies of PO3 Paulos and SPO2 Abalos contradicted each other regarding who had custody of the confiscated drug from the place of arrest to the police station, creating a gap in the chain of custody.
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, raising reasonable doubt about the integrity and identity of the evidence.
What is the role of the poseur-buyer in establishing the chain of custody?	The poseur-buyer’s testimony is crucial for establishing the chain of custody of the drug he allegedly bought from the accused. He must testify on the handling of the drug after the arrest.
What documentary evidence is required to prove the chain of custody?	Documentary evidence such as the request for laboratory examination, the initial laboratory report, the chemistry report, and the sworn statements of the arresting officers can help prove the chain of custody. However, these documents must be consistent with the testimonial evidence and must not contain any gaps or inconsistencies.

The People v. Guanzon case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that law enforcement agencies adhere to the prescribed procedures in drug cases. This decision serves as a stern reminder that strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is not merely a technicality but a fundamental safeguard against abuse and wrongful convictions.

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. RICARDO GUANZON Y CENETA, G.R. No. 233653, September 05, 2018