In Edwin Fuentes y Garcia @ “Kanyod” v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court acquitted the petitioner and his co-accused of illegal drug possession due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. This means that the prosecution failed to account for each link in the chain, from seizure to presentation in court, raising doubts about the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs. The ruling emphasizes that strict compliance with chain of custody procedures is not a mere technicality, but a crucial safeguard to protect against potential police abuse and ensure the reliability of evidence, particularly in cases where the penalty may be life imprisonment. This decision reinforces the importance of meticulously following legal protocols to uphold the accused’s constitutional presumption of innocence.

Drug Cases and Doubt: When a Broken Chain Leads to Acquittal

The case arose from the arrest of Edwin Fuentes and Nicky Calotes, who were caught allegedly exchanging a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, later identified as methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”. Police officers, acting on a surveillance operation, apprehended Calotes and Fuentes, seizing a total of three plastic sachets. However, critical lapses in the handling and documentation of the seized evidence led to the Supreme Court overturning their conviction. The central legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, a cornerstone requirement in Philippine drug cases.

The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty. This is because the dangerous drug itself constitutes an integral part of the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. As the Court noted,

“Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal.”

Therefore, the prosecution must demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody.

To meet this standard, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody, from the moment the drugs are seized until their presentation in court. This includes proper documentation, handling, and storage of the evidence to prevent any suspicion of tampering or contamination. Key to this is the chain of custody rule. The Court elucidated that the procedure requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation. This must be done in the presence of the accused or their representative, as well as certain mandatory witnesses. These witnesses include representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official before the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, or an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media after the amendment.

Building on this principle, the Court acknowledged that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible due to varying field conditions. However, any deviations from the procedure must be justified, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640, contains a saving clause allowing for deviations if these conditions are met. However, the Court was keen to stress the mandatory nature of the requirements.

The Court clarified that compliance with the chain of custody rule is not a mere technicality that courts can relax at their discretion. Rather, it is a statutory requirement designed to safeguard against potential police abuse, especially given the severe penalties associated with drug offenses. The Court emphasized that the chain of custody rule is an administrative protocol that law enforcement officers must implement as part of their police functions. Failure to comply with the rule, or to justify non-compliance, raises reasonable doubt about the integrity of the evidence. Because the seized drugs form the corpus delicti in drug cases, it is a crucial safeguard for the accused’s presumption of innocence. Therefore, the Court firmly established the chain of custody rule as a matter of substantive law, not merely a procedural technicality.

In the case at hand, the Court found several critical lapses in the chain of custody. First, the prosecution failed to identify who received the request for laboratory examination and the seized items at the crime laboratory. The records indicated that a certain “Relos” received the items, but the prosecution did not establish who this person was or what role they played in the chain of custody. Second, the records lacked evidence showing that the seized items were photographed in the presence of the petitioner, his representative, or the required witnesses. Third, the inventory was not witnessed by an elected public official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative. The Certificate of Inventory showed that only the City Architect of Muntinlupa City, who is not an elected official, witnessed the inventory.

The Court reiterated that the prosecution must account for the absence of these witnesses by presenting a justifiable reason or demonstrating genuine efforts to secure their presence. Because the prosecution failed to meet this burden, the Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been compromised, warranting the petitioner’s acquittal. Although the petitioner’s co-accused, Calotes, did not join in filing the petition, the Court extended the acquittal to him as well, because the criminal case against Calotes arose from the same set of facts and the acquittal was favorable to him. Section 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure allows such an extension.

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, ensuring their integrity and evidentiary value, as required under RA 9165. The Court found several lapses in the handling of evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule is a procedure that requires law enforcement to meticulously document and maintain control over seized evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. This ensures the evidence is not tampered with or contaminated, preserving its integrity.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	In drug cases, the seized drugs form the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. A broken chain of custody raises doubts about the identity and integrity of the drugs, potentially violating the accused’s right to due process and presumption of innocence.
What are the required steps in the chain of custody?	The required steps include immediate inventory and photography of the seized items, marking the items for identification, proper storage, and documentation of every transfer of custody. The process must be witnessed by specific individuals, including elected officials or media representatives.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are compromised. This may lead to the suppression of evidence and the acquittal of the accused, as it raises reasonable doubt about their guilt.
Can deviations from the chain of custody be excused?	Deviations may be excused if the prosecution can provide justifiable reasons for the non-compliance and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. However, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
What is the role of the witnesses in the chain of custody?	The witnesses, including elected officials or media representatives, ensure transparency and prevent the possibility of tampering or planting of evidence. Their presence helps to establish the integrity of the chain of custody.
What was the impact of RA 10640 on the chain of custody rule?	RA 10640 amended RA 9165 and clarified the requirements for witnesses in the chain of custody process. It streamlined the witness requirement to include an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fuentes v. People serves as a reminder of the critical importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug cases. Law enforcement agencies must meticulously follow the prescribed procedures to ensure the integrity of evidence and protect the rights of the accused. Failure to do so can have significant consequences, potentially leading to the acquittal of individuals charged with serious drug offenses.

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: EDWIN FUENTES Y GARCIA @ “KANYOD” VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 228718, January 07, 2019