In People of the Philippines vs. Edwin Alconde y Madla and Julius Querquela y Rebaca, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere strictly to the chain of custody rule regarding seized drugs. This ruling emphasizes that non-compliance with mandatory procedures for handling evidence, especially the absence of required witnesses during inventory and photography, can compromise the integrity of the evidence and warrant acquittal. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting individual rights and ensuring meticulous adherence to legal protocols in drug-related cases, reinforcing the need for law enforcement to respect procedural safeguards.

Broken Chains: When Drug Evidence Fails the Test of Integrity

The case originated from a buy-bust operation where Edwin Alconde and Julius Querquela were apprehended for the alleged sale and possession of illegal drugs. Following their arrest, the police conducted an inventory and photographed the seized items, but these actions were not performed in the presence of all the mandatory witnesses required by law. Only Barangay Captain Malingin was present, falling short of the requirement for a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (or National Prosecution Service, post-RA 10640 amendment). Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted the accused, but the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, emphasizing the critical importance of the chain of custody rule in drug cases.

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 the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, and is essential for proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To ensure the integrity of the corpus delicti, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody. This chain begins from the moment the drugs are seized until they are presented in court as evidence. The rigorousness of this standard is required to prevent doubts regarding the evidence presented.

Central to the chain of custody is the requirement that the seized items be marked, physically inventoried, and photographed immediately after seizure. Crucially, this must occur in the presence of the accused or their representative, as well as specific witnesses mandated by law. Prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, these witnesses included a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, along with any elected public official. Post-amendment, the requirement shifted to an elected public official and a representative from either the National Prosecution Service or the media. The purpose of these witness requirements is to maintain transparency and prevent any suspicion of tampering with the evidence.

The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of adhering to the specified witness requirements, stating:

Pertinent to this case, the law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses.

In this instance, the inventory and photography were conducted without the presence of the mandated witnesses. While photographs were taken immediately after the arrest, they were only in the presence of the accused. Barangay Captain Malingin, an elected public official, arrived later at the police precinct to witness the marking and inventory. This deviation from the prescribed procedure raised serious concerns about the integrity of the evidence. This departure from the standard practice immediately put the case in question.

The Court emphasized that the chain of custody procedure is not a mere procedural technicality but a matter of substantive law, designed to safeguard against potential police abuses. However, the Court also acknowledged that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be feasible. Thus, non-compliance does not automatically render the seizure void, provided the prosecution can demonstrate justifiable grounds for the deviation and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. This is rooted in the IRR of RA 9165, which states:

“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.”

Regarding the witness requirement, the prosecution must prove that genuine and sufficient efforts were made to secure the presence of the required witnesses. In this case, the police officers failed to provide a plausible explanation for the absence of all the required witnesses during the inventory and photography. Nor did they demonstrate genuine efforts to secure their presence. The Barangay Captain was only called after the buy-bust operation, not before, which is a critical distinction. In conclusion the court determined it to be an error in procedure that violated the standards.

Because of this unexcused deviation from the chain of custody rule, the Supreme Court determined that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from the accused had been compromised, leading to their acquittal. This decision underscores the vital importance of strict compliance with chain of custody procedures in drug cases, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and that the evidence presented is reliable and untainted.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule, particularly regarding the required witnesses during inventory and photography of seized drugs, warranted the acquittal of the accused. The integrity of the evidence was compromised.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the process of documenting and tracking the handling of evidence to ensure its integrity and prevent contamination or alteration. It requires a clear record of who had possession of the evidence, when, and what changes were made to it.
Who are the required witnesses for inventory and photography of seized drugs?	Prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, the required witnesses were a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. After the amendment, the requirements changed to an elected public official and a representative from either the National Prosecution Service or the media.
What happens if the chain of custody is not strictly followed?	If the chain of custody is not strictly followed, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items may be compromised, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. However, non-compliance may be excused if there are justifiable grounds and the prosecution can prove the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
What constitutes justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the chain of custody rule?	Justifiable grounds for non-compliance may include situations where it was impossible to secure the presence of the required witnesses despite genuine and sufficient efforts, or where unforeseen circumstances prevented strict adherence to the prescribed procedures. However, the prosecution bears the burden of proving these grounds.
Why is the chain of custody rule so important in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule is crucial in drug cases because it helps prevent the switching, planting, or contamination of evidence, ensuring that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused. This safeguards the rights of the accused and maintains the integrity of the legal process.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution’s failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule compromised the integrity of the evidence. The absence of required witnesses during inventory and photography was a critical factor in the acquittal.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to strictly adhere to the chain of custody procedures in drug cases, including securing the presence of all required witnesses during inventory and photography. Failure to do so may result in the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the other evidence presented.

This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding due process and protecting the rights of individuals accused of drug-related offenses. The meticulous enforcement of the chain of custody rule serves as a critical safeguard against potential abuses and ensures that convictions are based on reliable and untainted evidence. It is a reminder that the State’s power to prosecute must be balanced with the constitutional rights of the accused.

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. EDWIN ALCONDE Y MADLA AND JULIUS QUERQUELA Y REBACA, G.R. No. 238117, February 04, 2019