In the case of People of the Philippines v. Roderick Lazaro y Flores, 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 drug presented in court was the same one confiscated from the accused. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with the chain of custody rule, as outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, is essential to protect individuals from potential evidence tampering or planting, reinforcing the importance of procedural safeguards in drug-related cases.

From Buy-Bust to Broken Chains: Can a Drug Conviction Stand Without Proper Evidence Handling?

Roderick Lazaro was charged with selling illegal drugs after a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented evidence that he sold shabu to an undercover police officer. Lazaro, however, claimed he was wrongly arrested and that the evidence against him was fabricated. The central legal question was whether the prosecution had proven Lazaro’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the integrity of the drug evidence. This hinged on whether the police properly followed the strict procedures for handling drug evidence, known as the chain of custody.

To secure a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, the prosecution must establish several key elements. First, the identities of both the buyer and the seller must be clear. Second, the object of the sale—the dangerous drug—must be unequivocally identified, along with its agreed-upon price. Finally, the prosecution must prove that the drug was delivered to the buyer and payment was made to the seller. The most critical aspect is ensuring that the drug presented in court is precisely the same one seized from the accused, maintaining the integrity of the evidence.

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the identity of the prohibited drug is the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, and must be proven with moral certainty. This requires an unbroken chain of custody, which means meticulously tracking the drug from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. This unbroken chain prevents any doubts about potential switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence. Each link in this chain must be accounted for, from initial seizure to forensic examination and court presentation.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the specific procedures that law enforcement officers must follow when handling seized drugs. This section details the requirements for inventory and photography of the drugs immediately after seizure. Crucially, this process must occur in the presence of the accused or their representative, as well as representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These witnesses are required to sign the inventory, and each is given a copy, providing a safeguard against potential mishandling of evidence.

In 2014, Republic Act No. 10640 amended Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. While the amendment reduced the number of required witnesses to two—an elected public official and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media—the core principle of having independent observers remained. These witnesses still must be present during the inventory and sign the inventory copies. However, it also introduced a caveat, stating that noncompliance with these requirements would not automatically invalidate the seizure if there were justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

Since Lazaro’s case occurred before the 2014 amendment, the original provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 apply. Under these provisions, the physical inventory and photography of the seized drugs should ideally occur at the place of seizure. However, if this is not practicable, the inventory can be conducted at the nearest police station or the apprehending officer’s office. Regardless of the location, the presence of an elected public official, a representative from the DOJ, and a media representative is mandatory, reinforcing the importance of transparency and accountability in drug operations.

The Supreme Court has stressed the critical role these witnesses play in safeguarding the integrity of drug evidence. In People v. Mendoza, the Court stated 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 [R.A. No.] 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.

In Lazaro’s case, the appellate court argued that the prosecution had substantially complied with the chain of custody requirements, and even though the apprehending officers failed to conduct a proper inventory, this did not affect the evidentiary weight and admissibility of the seized item. The appellate court highlighted that the seized item was properly marked and photographed in Lazaro’s presence at the police station, and the chain of custody remained unbroken, preserving its integrity and evidentiary value. However, the Supreme Court strongly disagreed with this assessment.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the arresting officers’ failure to fully comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, without providing any justifiable reason, was a fatal flaw in the prosecution’s case. While marking the seized item is a crucial first step, it is only the beginning of the chain of custody. The arresting officers must then conduct a physical inventory and photograph the item in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses. These witnesses must sign the inventory, acknowledging their presence and verifying that the item described is indeed the one inventoried. The Court found that simply marking the item and handing it over to the PNP Crime Laboratory was insufficient, especially given the inadequate physical inventory and the absence of the required witnesses.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the trial court’s reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. It is a well-established principle that when there is a departure from the mandated procedures outlined in Section 21, the arresting officers must provide a justifiable reason for the non-compliance. They must demonstrate that they made their best effort to comply with the law. Otherwise, the presumption of regularity does not apply. When there are unjustified lapses and deviations from the standard conduct, the legal presumption loses its force.

In People v. Relato, the Supreme Court underscored the heavy burden the State carries in proving cases involving the sale and possession of illegal drugs. This burden includes not only proving the elements of the offense but also establishing the corpus delicti. Failure to do so means the State has not proven the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance 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.

The Court acknowledged that achieving a perfect chain of custody is often impossible, and minor procedural lapses can be excused if the prosecution demonstrates that the arresting officers made a genuine effort to comply with the requirements and provides a justifiable reason for any non-compliance. However, the prosecution cannot simply invoke the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items without explaining their failure to meet the legal requirements. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties does not hold when police officers deliberately disregard procedural safeguards.

In the case of Lazaro, the prosecution failed to provide any justification for not complying with the requirements of Section 21, particularly the failure to conduct a physical inventory and the absence of the required witnesses. These failures created a substantial gap in the chain of custody, raising serious doubts about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. Therefore, the Supreme Court acquitted Lazaro, reinforcing the constitutional presumption of innocence.

The Constitution mandates that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution bears the burden of overcoming this presumption with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense’s evidence. Because the prosecution’s case had critical flaws, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision and acquitted Lazaro.

FAQs

What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the documented and unbroken transfer of evidence, specifically illegal drugs, from the time of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and authenticity of the evidence by tracking its handling and storage.
Why is the chain of custody so important?	It is important because it prevents tampering, substitution, or contamination of the evidence. An unbroken chain of custody assures the court that the drug presented is the same one seized from the accused, ensuring a fair trial.
What are the key steps in the chain of custody under R.A. 9165?	Key steps include immediate marking of the seized item, physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused and required witnesses, proper storage, and submission to the crime laboratory for analysis. Each transfer of custody must be documented.
Who are the required witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs?	Under the original R.A. 9165, the required witnesses are the accused (or their representative), a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The amended law (R.A. 10640) requires an elected public official and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media.
What happens if the police fail to follow the chain of custody rules?	Failure to comply with chain of custody rules can lead to the exclusion of the drug evidence in court. If the prosecution’s case relies on this evidence, the accused may be acquitted due to reasonable doubt.
Can minor deviations from the chain of custody be excused?	Yes, minor deviations may be excused if the prosecution can show justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. However, the prosecution must actively demonstrate these points.
What is the role of the presumption of innocence in drug cases?	The presumption of innocence means that the accused is presumed innocent until the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes establishing the integrity of the drug evidence and following proper procedures.
What was the final outcome of the Lazaro case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Roderick Lazaro due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The Court found that the police did not follow proper procedures in handling the seized drug.

The People v. Lazaro case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases. The integrity of the chain of custody is not merely a technicality; it is a fundamental protection against potential abuses and ensures that individuals are not unjustly convicted. This ruling emphasizes the need for law enforcement to diligently follow the requirements of R.A. 9165 to uphold the principles of justice and due process.

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 PHILIPINES VS. RODERICK LAZARO Y FLORES, G.R. No. 229219, November 21, 2018