In the case of People of the Philippines v. Fernando Balles, Emma Sulit, and Carmelita Libao, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. This ruling underscores the critical importance of adhering to strict procedural safeguards in handling drug evidence, as mandated by Republic Act No. 9165, to ensure the integrity and identity of the seized items are maintained. The decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement of the necessity to meticulously follow the chain of custody requirements to secure convictions in drug-related cases, reinforcing the constitutional right to presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt.

When Protocol Fails: Did Mishandled Evidence Free Accused Drug Dealers?

The case revolves around a buy-bust operation conducted by the Western Police District (WPD) District Anti-Illegal Drugs (DAID) in Manila, which led to the arrest of Fernando Balles, Emma Sulit, and Carmelita Libao for alleged drug offenses. The prosecution presented evidence asserting that the appellants were caught selling and possessing shabu, a prohibited drug under Philippine law. However, the defense argued that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs were compromised due to the arresting officers’ failure to comply with the procedures outlined in Section 21, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, specifically regarding the immediate marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items in the presence of the accused and required witnesses. This procedural lapse raised serious questions about whether the drugs presented in court were indeed the same ones seized from the accused, thus impacting the core of the prosecution’s case.

At the heart of this case lies the concept of corpus delicti, which in drug-related cases, refers to the dangerous drug itself. The Supreme Court has consistently held that proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt is vital for securing a conviction. This stems from the unique nature of dangerous drugs, which are “indistinct, not readily identifiable and easily susceptible to tampering, alteration or substitution.” Therefore, meticulous adherence to the chain of custody rule is crucial to ensure that the drug presented in court is the very same one seized from the accused.

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the mandatory procedures that law enforcement must follow when handling seized illegal drugs. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, prior to its amendment by RA 10640 in 2014, provide that:

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:

(a)

The apprehending officer/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: 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, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items.

The Supreme Court emphasized that strict compliance with these procedures is essential, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving such compliance. In the present case, the Court found glaring lapses in the buy-bust team’s adherence to these mandatory protocols. Most notably, the arresting officers failed to mark the confiscated plastic sachets immediately after seizure, either at the place of arrest or at the nearest police station. The evidence showed that the appellants were first taken to a hospital for a physical examination before proceeding to the police station, where the seized sachets were marked not by the arresting officer (PO2 Jimenez) but by the investigating officer (PO1 Casupli), who was not even present during the buy-bust operation. This delay in marking created a significant gap in the chain of custody, making the drugs “easily susceptible to tampering, alteration or substitution.”

Further compounding the issue, the records did not indicate that the seized items were ever inventoried or photographed in the presence of the appellants or their representatives, along with representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. The absence of a physical inventory sheet or photographs of the seized plastic sachets in the records was a critical deficiency that the Court could not overlook.

While the law allows for a “saving mechanism” in cases of non-compliance, this exception only applies under justifiable grounds, and as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must acknowledge and explain the lapses and demonstrate that the integrity of the evidence was maintained despite the procedural shortcomings. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide any justification for the buy-bust team’s non-compliance with Section 21(a) and did not present sufficient evidence to establish an unbroken chain of custody.

The Supreme Court has consistently stressed the importance of an unbroken chain of custody, as highlighted in People v. Bartolini:

x x x The prosecution has the duty to prove every link in the chain, from the moment the dangerous drug was seized from the accused until the time it is offered in court as evidence. The marking of the seized item, the first link in the chain of custody, is crucial in proving an unbroken chain of custody as it is the starting point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the evidence will use as a reference point. The succeeding links in the chain are the different processes the seized item will go through under the possession of different persons. This is why it is vital that each link is sufficiently proven to be unbroken – to obviate switching, planting, or contaminating the evidence.

The Court identified four crucial links in the chain of custody that the prosecution must establish: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the seized drug to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. In this case, the prosecution faltered in establishing the first link due to the delay in marking the drugs. The Court also noted serious evidentiary gaps in the subsequent links, specifically, the prosecution’s failure to disclose the identities of the persons who had custody of the seized items after they were turned over by PO2 Jimenez.

In light of these cumulative lapses, the Supreme Court concluded that the chain of custody was broken, casting doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti. This failure to prove an essential element of the crime, namely the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, led the Court to acquit the appellants on the ground of reasonable doubt. This ruling serves as a potent reminder of the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and that justice is served.

This case emphasizes that even with evidence of illegal drug sales, the prosecution must still prove an unbroken chain of custody. Without this, the evidence becomes questionable and insufficient to secure a conviction. Consequently, law enforcement must strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 to avoid acquittals based on reasonable doubt.

FAQs

This Supreme Court decision serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in RA 9165 when handling drug-related evidence. Failure to strictly comply with these procedures can have significant consequences, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the evidence pointing to their guilt. Law enforcement agencies must ensure their personnel are well-trained and equipped to follow these protocols meticulously to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

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. FERNANDO BALLES Y FOJAS, ET AL., G.R. No. 226143, November 21, 2018