In drug-related offenses, maintaining the integrity of evidence is paramount. The Supreme Court has emphasized that strict adherence to the chain of custody rule is essential to ensure the reliability of evidence presented in court. This case highlights the critical importance of proper handling and documentation of seized items, particularly the presence of required witnesses during inventory, to prevent any doubts regarding the authenticity and integrity of the evidence. The Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to prove that the inventory was conducted in the presence of the required witnesses, thus raising doubts about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

When Witnesses Arrive Late: Can Evidence Still Stand in Drug Cases?

The case of People of the Philippines v. Don Emilio Cariño y Agustin revolves around the arrest and subsequent conviction of Cariño for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” The prosecution alleged that Cariño was caught in a buy-bust operation selling shabu, and another sachet of the same substance was found on his person during a search incident to his arrest. The crucial issue before the Supreme Court was whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly preserved, particularly concerning the presence of required witnesses during the inventory of the seized items.

At the heart of drug-related cases lies the concept of corpus delicti, which refers to the body of the crime. For drug offenses, the dangerous drug itself is an integral part of the corpus delicti. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty. This requires demonstrating an unbroken chain of custody, from the moment the drugs are seized until they are presented in court as evidence. Failure to do so casts doubt on the integrity of the evidence and can lead to acquittal.

The chain of custody rule is a critical safeguard in drug cases. It ensures that the seized drugs are the same ones presented in court. This involves documenting every step of the process, from seizure to storage to testing, and ensuring that there is no break in the chain. The law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. This procedure must be done in the presence of the accused or his representative, as well as certain required witnesses.

According to Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165, before its amendment by RA 10640, the required witnesses were “a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.” After the amendment, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 stipulates that the witnesses should be “[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.” The purpose of these witnesses is to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure is not merely a procedural technicality but a matter of substantive law. This is because the law was crafted by Congress as a safety precaution to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment. However, the Court has also recognized that strict compliance may not always be possible due to varying field conditions. Thus, non-compliance would not automatically render the seizure and custody over the items void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

In this case, the prosecution presented an Inventory/Receipt of Property Seized with the signatures of Kagawad Merced, DOJ Representative Astillero, and Media Representative Gallarde. However, the testimonies of these witnesses revealed that they arrived after the inventory had already been completed. They were merely asked to sign the inventory form. This is a clear violation of the witness requirement, which mandates their presence during the conduct of the inventory.

As may be gleaned from the testimonies of the required witnesses themselves, the inventory was not conducted in their presence as the apprehending policemen already prepared the Inventory/Receipt of Property Seized when they arrived at the scene of arrest and only made them sign the same.

The prosecution failed to provide any justifiable reason for this procedural lapse. As such, the Supreme Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Cariño were compromised. This unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule warranted his acquittal.

This case reinforces the importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug cases. Law enforcement officers must ensure that the required witnesses are present during the inventory of seized items. Failure to do so can raise doubts about the integrity of the evidence and jeopardize the prosecution’s case. The absence of required witnesses during the inventory can be a critical factor in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The ruling serves as a reminder to prosecutors to meticulously account for any lapses in the chain of custody, regardless of whether the defense raises the issue. The State has a positive duty to ensure that the integrity of the evidence is maintained. Failure to do so can result in the overturning of a conviction, even if the issue is raised for the first time on appeal.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly preserved, especially concerning the presence of required witnesses during the inventory of the seized items.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	The chain of custody ensures that the seized drugs are the same ones presented in court. It documents every step of the process and prevents tampering or contamination.
Who are the required witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs?	Before RA 10640 amendment: a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. After the amendment: an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.
What happens if the required witnesses are not present during the inventory?	The prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for the absence of the witnesses. Failure to do so can compromise the integrity of the evidence and lead to acquittal.
What is the legal basis for the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule is based on Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
What is ‘corpus delicti’ in drug cases?	Corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti, and its identity must be established with moral certainty.
Can a conviction be overturned if the chain of custody is not strictly followed?	Yes, if the prosecution fails to provide a justifiable reason for non-compliance with the chain of custody rule, and the integrity of the evidence is compromised, a conviction can be overturned.
What should law enforcement officers do to ensure compliance with the chain of custody rule?	Law enforcement officers should ensure that the required witnesses are present during the inventory of seized items and document every step of the process meticulously.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Cariño underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug cases. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement officers and prosecutors to ensure that the integrity of evidence is preserved at all stages of the proceedings. Moving forward, strict compliance will be necessary to uphold the rights of the accused and ensure the reliability 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 v. Cariño, G.R. No. 233336, January 14, 2019