In GR No. 188900, People v. Habana, March 5, 2010, the Philippine Supreme Court ordered the acquittal of an accused drug dealer for failure of police officers to observe the chain of custody rule under the Dangerous Drugs Act.
The Court of Appeals and the Caloocan Regional Trial Court (RTC) had found Fernando Habana guilty of violation of secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of RA 9165, the Dangerous Drugs Act, for selling and possession of sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu. The Caloocan RTC sentenced Habana to a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of PhP500,000 for selling illegal drugs and imprisonment for 12 to 14 years and a fine of PhP300,000 for possession.
In reversing the rulings of both courts, the High Tribunal held that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the prohibited drugs under the requirements set by RA 9165, specifically the chain of custody rule which requires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. The prosecution was unable to establish how the seized items changed hands, from when the police officers seized the drugs from Habana to the time they were presented in court as evidence particularly what the investigator on duty did with the seized articles, how these got to the laboratory technician, and how they were kept before being adduced in evidence at the trial.
The Court noted that while it recognizes that substantial adherence and not perfect adherence to the requirements of RA 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations is what is demanded of police officers attending to drugs cases, “such officers must present justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved.” The police, however, failed to offer an explanation for their failure to comply with the procedure thus compromising the identity and integrity of the items seized which is the corpus delicti of the crimes charged against Habana.
see:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/publications/benchmark/2010/031003.php