In a critical ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Eduardo Catinguel y Viray, overturning his conviction for drug sale due to the prosecution’s failure to maintain an unbroken chain of custody over the seized marijuana. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual rights by strictly enforcing procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. The meticulous requirements for handling evidence, from seizure to presentation in court, are essential to ensure the integrity of the process and prevent wrongful convictions. This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to proper legal protocols in drug enforcement, affirming that even with a positive drug test, failure to follow the chain of custody can result in acquittal.

When Procedure Protects: How a Drug Case Unraveled on a Technicality

The case of People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Catinguel y Viray (G.R. No. 229205, March 6, 2019) hinged on the prosecution’s ability to prove that the substance seized from the accused was the same substance presented in court. Accused-appellant Eduardo Catinguel y Viray was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution presented PO1 Adhedin C. Lamsen, who testified he conducted a buy-bust operation based on information that Catinguel was selling marijuana. Lamsen claimed that after being assured by the confidential informant, he bought one (1) transparent heat-sealed plastic sachet and gave the marked money to the accused-appellant. PO3 Rico rushed to their location after PO1 Lamsen gave the pre-arranged signal. PO3 Rico introduced himself and PO1 Lamsen as police officers and informed the accused-appellant of his rights. Thereafter, PO3 Rico arrested accused-appellant and recovered from him the marked money.

The defense presented a starkly different narrative. Catinguel claimed he was a tricycle driver who was approached by police officers and invited to the police station. He was bodily searched and when nothing was found, the Chief of Police brought out marijuana and asserted that it belonged to Catinguel. The trial court convicted Catinguel, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. Catinguel then appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the prosecution failed to prove a valid buy-bust operation and that the police officers failed to comply with the requirements of RA 9165 and its IRR. He specifically pointed to the improper marking of the seized item, the absence of a local elected official during the inventory, and a broken chain of custody.

The Supreme Court focused on the critical legal requirements outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165, which mandates specific procedures for handling seized drugs. This section aims to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. It requires immediate inventory and photography of the drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice, and an elected public official. The implementing rules further specify that this inventory should occur at the place of seizure or the nearest police station, with limited exceptions for justifiable reasons.

SEC. 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:
(1) The apprehending 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, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; x x x

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the prosecution’s evidence against these legal requirements. The Court found several critical flaws in the chain of custody. First, the marking of the seized item was not immediately done at the place of arrest. PO1 Lamsen claimed he feared trouble from the accused’s friends, but the Court found this excuse “flimsy,” questioning why two armed officers couldn’t secure the area. Second, there was a failure to secure the presence of a barangay official during the inventory. While media and DOJ representatives were present, the invitation to barangay officials was made by telephone, and no further effort was made to ensure their attendance. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of these witnesses to prevent any doubts or suspicions regarding the authenticity of the seized item.

Further complicating matters, the apprehending officer did not properly turn over the seized item to the investigating officer. PO1 Lamsen testified that he retained possession of the sachet even at the police station, merely showing it to the investigator. This failure to transfer custody deviated from established procedure. The Supreme Court also noted inconsistencies in the handling of the evidence. Forensic chemist PCI Todeño claimed to have personally received the item from PO1 Lamsen, while PO1 Lamsen testified he gave it to PO1 Daus for laboratory examination, an inconsistency that raised further doubts.

The final, critical flaw was the failure to present the testimony of the evidence custodian. PCI Todeño testified that she turned the item over to the evidence custodian for safekeeping, but this individual was never called to testify. The Court has emphasized that the illegal drugs being the corpus delicti must be presented. Given all these failures, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, rendering the evidence inadmissible and necessitating Catinguel’s acquittal.

The Supreme Court cited the case of Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008), which elaborates on the chain of custody, emphasizing that it is a method of authenticating evidence. This case highlighted that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It includes testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence.

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

In light of these breaches, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Catinguel. This ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug cases. The case stresses that the prosecution must account for every link in the chain, from seizure to presentation in court, to ensure the integrity of the evidence and safeguard the rights of the accused. The court has emphasized that the prosecution must account for every link in the chain to secure conviction.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized marijuana, ensuring the integrity and admissibility of the evidence. The failure to do so led to the acquittal of the accused.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires that the prosecution account for every link in the chain of possession of evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, to ensure that the evidence is authentic and untainted. This involves documenting who handled the evidence, when, and what changes, if any, were made to it.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	In drug cases, the illegal drug itself is the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. A broken chain of custody casts doubt on the identity and integrity of the substance, making it difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance seized from the accused is the same substance tested and presented in court.
What are the required witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized drugs?	Section 21 of RA 9165 requires the presence of the accused (or their representative), a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official during the inventory and photography of seized drugs. These witnesses serve to ensure transparency and prevent tampering.
What was the main problem with the prosecution’s case in this instance?	The prosecution had issues with the marking of seized items not done at the place of arrest and an absence of a barangay official during the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs. The chain of custody was also not maintained, as multiple transfers of the drug evidence were not properly documented.
Where should the inventory and photography of seized drugs take place?	The implementing rules of RA 9165 state that the inventory and photography should be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served or, in cases of warrantless seizures, at the nearest police station or office, whichever is practicable.
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 can lead to the inadmissibility of the evidence, making it difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as happened in this case.
Did the Court find the buy-bust operation invalid in this case?	While the accused questioned the validity of the buy-bust operation, the Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the broken chain of custody. The Court did not make a definitive ruling on the validity of the buy-bust operation itself.

This case underscores the critical importance of meticulously following legal procedures in drug cases, particularly the chain of custody rule. Law enforcement agencies must ensure strict compliance to safeguard the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the justice system. The failure to adhere to these safeguards can result in the exclusion of evidence and the acquittal of the accused, regardless of other factors.

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. Catinguel, G.R. No. 229205, March 6, 2019