In a ruling that reinforces the stringent requirements for drug-related convictions, the Supreme Court affirmed the importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized narcotics. The Court emphasized that even if standard procedures are not strictly followed, the integrity of the evidence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This case highlights the critical role of forensic chemists in preserving the integrity of drug evidence and the necessity of meticulous documentation throughout the handling process, ensuring that justice is served based on reliable and untainted evidence.

Buy-Bust and Broken Chains: Did the Prosecution Prove its Case Beyond Doubt?

This case, People of the Philippines v. Catherine Romorosa y Ostoy, revolves around the conviction of Catherine Romorosa for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The prosecution presented evidence from a buy-bust operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), leading to Romorosa’s arrest and subsequent conviction. At the heart of Romorosa’s appeal was the claim that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized shabu, thus casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence. The defense argued that the failure of the forensic chemist to turn over the evidence to the evidence custodian violated standard NBI procedure and undermined the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the appeal, asserting that the prosecution adequately demonstrated the integrity of the evidence. The Court emphasized that while adherence to standard procedures is crucial, the primary concern is whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. It meticulously analyzed the testimony and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, focusing particularly on the role of the forensic chemist, Senior Forensic Chemist Edwin C. Purificando (SFC Purificando) of the NBI, and Special Investigator Rolan Fernandez (SI Fernandez), the poseur buyer during the buy-bust operation.

In its decision, the Court referenced People v. Kamad, a landmark case that delineates the essential links in establishing an unbroken chain of custody:

x x x: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.

The Court found that SI Fernandez and SFC Purificando’s testimonies, along with the prosecution’s evidence, covered all essential links in Kamad. After the buy-bust operation, SI Fernandez took possession of the plastic sachets sold by Romorosa, marking them for identification. Due to safety concerns, the markings, inventory, and photograph-taking were conducted at the NBI office. SI Fernandez then forwarded the marked sachets to SI Regalario, who prepared the inventory. Photographs of Romorosa with the marked sachets were also taken. The NBI also contacted barangay officials as well as the Department of Justice (DOJ) for them to send representatives to witness such inventory and photograph taking. However, none came.

The marked sachets were subsequently submitted to SFC Purificando for laboratory examination, which confirmed the presence of shabu. SFC Purificando retained custody of the sachets in a steel cabinet until he was summoned to produce them in court. The defense argued that SFC Purificando’s failure to turn over the evidence to an “evidence custodian” cast doubt on its integrity. The Court, however, disagreed. While it acknowledged that deviation from standard procedure occurred, it emphasized that the foremost consideration is whether the drug’s integrity was compromised. The Court stated:

From the perspective of case law, on the other hand, it would seem that — for the purpose of establishing the chain of custody over an illegal drug — a direct submission of such drug from the forensic chemist to the court may be allowed. If we may remember, in the Kamad case cited above, the submission of the seized illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court was recognized as the last link needed to complete an unbroken chain of custody over such drug.

The Court emphasized that the law does not mandate a specific intermediary between the forensic chemist and the court. Direct submission by the chemist is permissible, provided the drug’s integrity is maintained. The Court found ample evidence that SFC Purificando took adequate precautions to protect the shabu from contamination or substitution. SFC Purificando testified that he kept the evidence in a secure steel cabinet in his office, accessible only to him. He further testified that the security seals and markings on the sachets remained intact, assuring the court that the substance was never altered or adulterated while under his custody.

Building on this principle, the Court also addressed the alleged inconsistencies in SI Fernandez’s testimony. The defense argued that SI Fernandez gave inconsistent accounts of how the drug deal was brokered, undermining his credibility. Specifically, the defense pointed to a discrepancy between SI Fernandez’s testimony, where he stated that the confidential informant (CI) arranged the deal, and the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, which stated that SI Fernandez “closed the deal.”

The Court, however, clarified that the affidavit referred to SI Fernandez closing the deal during the buy-bust operation itself, implying that he consummated the sale pre-arranged by the CI. The Court elaborated on the context in which such statement is made, would show that there is really no inconsistency between it and the testimony of SI Fernandez, thus:

As can be seen, the affidavit referenced to SI Fernandez as being able to “close a deal” for the purchase of shabu during the conduct of the buy-bust operation itself. This implies that the affidavit’s use of the phrase “close a deal” was not to connote that it was SI Fernandez who contacted Omar and made prior arrangements for the sale of shabu in Alabang. Rather, the phrase was used in the sense that it was only SI Fernandez who was able to consummate the sale of shabu which had been pre-arranged by the CI.

Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the appellant’s denial could not overcome the affirmative testimonies of law enforcement officers, whose credibility remained intact. This decision underscores the critical importance of establishing a clear and unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs, but also emphasizes that strict adherence to standard procedures is not the sole determinant of the evidence’s integrity. The Court’s emphasis on the forensic chemist’s role and the meticulous preservation of evidence provides valuable guidance for law enforcement and legal professionals involved in drug-related cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the prosecution successfully proved an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, despite the forensic chemist’s failure to turn over the evidence to an evidence custodian before submitting it to the court.
What is the significance of the “chain of custody” in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the chronological documentation of the handling of evidence, ensuring its integrity and preventing contamination or substitution. Establishing an unbroken chain is crucial for proving that the evidence presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused.
Did the Supreme Court find any inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that the alleged inconsistencies in SI Fernandez’s testimony were more imagined than real. The Court explained that the phrase “close a deal” in the affidavit referred to the consummation of the sale during the buy-bust operation, not the initial arrangement of the drug deal.
Why did the forensic chemist directly submit the evidence to the court?	The forensic chemist directly submitted the evidence to the court because there is no specific law requiring an intermediary between the chemist and the court. The Supreme Court found this acceptable as long as the integrity of the evidence was maintained.
What security measures did the forensic chemist take to preserve the integrity of the evidence?	The forensic chemist testified that he stored the evidence in a secure steel cabinet in his office, accessible only to him. He also confirmed that the security seals and markings on the sachets remained intact, ensuring that the substance was not altered or adulterated while in his custody.
What was the appellant’s defense in this case?	The appellant denied being caught selling shabu and claimed that she was a victim of a police frame-up. However, the Court found her denial insufficient to overcome the affirmative testimonies of the law enforcement officers.
What is the implication of this ruling for future drug cases?	This ruling reinforces the importance of establishing a clear chain of custody for seized drugs but also clarifies that strict adherence to standard procedures is not the sole determinant of the evidence’s integrity. The focus is on whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved.
What is the penalty for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165?	The penalty is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00).

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Catherine Romorosa y Ostoy underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases. By focusing on the substance of the chain of custody rather than mere procedural compliance, the Court has provided clarity and guidance for future cases involving the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of meticulous documentation and secure handling of evidence to uphold justice and protect the rights of all parties involved.

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. Romorosa, G.R. No. 237209, April 10, 2019