The lapses and significant gaps in the chain of custody cast serious doubts and taint the integrity of the corpus delicti.

[ G.R. No. 267265, January 24, 2024 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDWIN CORDOVA Y MANALASTAS, JAYSON TALADUA Y BARBARRA, MARY ANTONETTE DEL ROSARIO Y TAMONDONG, AND JAIME CORDOVA Y MANALASTAS (ACQUITTED), ACCUSED; EDWIN CORDOVA Y MANALASTAS, AND JAYSON TALADUA Y BARBARRA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/jan2024/gr_267265_2024.html


"Xxx.

The rule on chain of custody in drugs cases

To sustain a conviction for the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must be able to establish with moral certainty the identity of the confiscated drug.43 To remove any doubt or uncertainty as to the identity and integrity of the seized drug, it must be proven that the substance illegally sold by the accused is the same substance offered and identified in court.44 This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule. Chain of custody has been defined as "the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each stage, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until it is presented to the court."45
The chain of custody rule is provided for under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640,46 which was passed on July 15, 2014. Considering that the illegal acts of selling and/or possessing dangerous drugs were allegedly committed by Edwin and Taladua on January 17, 2019, the revised chain of custody rule applies in this case. In this regard, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, provides that:

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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.] (Emphasis supplied)

From the foregoing, the following are the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation:

1. The first link is the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;

2. The second link refers to the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;

3. The third link pertains to the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and

4. The fourth link is the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.1aшphi147
While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, this is true only when (i) there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Thus, any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and must not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated contraband. Absent any of the said conditions, the non-compliance is an irregularity, a red flag, that casts reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti.48

The prosecution failed to establish the first link in the chain of custody

The first link in the chain of custody involves the seizure, marking, and conduct of inventory of the seized dangerous drug. In People v. Somira,49 the Court, citing its ruling in People v. Zakaria,50 emphasized the importance of this first link as follows:

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized dangerous drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused, for the marking upon seizure is the starting point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the evidence will use as reference point. Moreover, the value of marking of the evidence is to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of evidence. A failure to mark at the time of taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of the chain of custody that the law requires.51

In Nisperos v. People52 (Nisperos), the Court adopted the following guidelines in the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs of seized dangerous drugs:
In order to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, particularly our law enforcement officers, the Court hereby adopts the following guidelines:

1. The marking of the seized dangerous drugs must be done:

a. Immediately upon confiscation;

b. At the place of confiscation; and

c. In the presence of the offender (unless the offender eluded the arrest);

2. The conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the seized dangerous drugs must be done:

a. Immediately after seizure and confiscation;

b. 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; and

c. Also in the presence of the insulating witnesses, as follows:

i. if the seizure occurred during the effectivity of R.A. No. 9165, or from July 4, 2002 until August 6, 2014, the presence of three (3) witnesses, namely, an elected public official; a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative; and a media representative;

ii. if the seizure occurred after the effectivity of R.A. No. 10640, or from August 7, 2014 onward, the presence of two (2) witnesses, namely, an elected public official; and a National Prosecution Service representative or a media representative.

3. In case of any deviation from the foregoing, the prosecution must positively acknowledge the same and prove (1) justifiable ground/s for non-compliance and (2) the proper preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item/s.53 (Emphasis supplied)

Based on the foregoing, the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized dangerous drugs must be done immediately after their seizure and confiscation. In this regard, the Court ruled in People v. Casa54 (Casa) that "the phrase 'immediately after seizure and confiscation' means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension."55 Consequently, the insulating witnesses are also required "to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs 'immediately after seizure and confiscation."'56

In People v. Bartolini,57 the Court ruled that the failure of the apprehending officers to immediately mark the seized dangerous drug casts doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti, which warrants an acquittal based on reasonable doubt:

In this case, we find that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the first link in the chain of custody. There was a failure to mark the drugs immediately after the items were seized from Bartolini. The items were marked only at the police station and the prosecution offered no reasonable explanation as to why the items were not immediately marked after seizure. We have previously held that the failure to mark the drugs immediately after seizure from the accused cast doubt on the prosecution's evidence, which warrants an acquittal on reasonable doubt.
. . . .

This Court has been consistent in holding that the failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

There have been cases when the Court relaxed the application of Section 21 and held that the subsequent marking at the police station is valid. However, this non-compliance is not fatal only when there are (1) justifiable grounds and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. And while the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 now allows the conduct of physical inventory in the nearest police station, the principal concern remains to be the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. In this case, however, the prosecution offered no explanation at all for the non-compliance with Section 21, more particularly that relating to the immediate marking of the seized items. This non-explanation creates doubt on whether the buy-bust team was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized from Bartolini.58 (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, the CA ruled that the prosecution was able to successfully prove the police officers' compliance with the chain of custody rule.59 Consequently, the CA concluded that the prosecution had established the integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.60

The Court disagrees.

A review of the records of this case reveals that the first link in the chain of custody rule was not complied with. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses show that the insulating witnesses were not at or near the place of arrest at the time of apprehension.

PO1 Torres, the buy-bust team's poseur buyer, admitted that the buy-bust team only contacted the insulating witnesses, Barangay Captain Garra of Barangay Greater Lagro and media representative Yu, after Edwin's and Taladua's arrest, thus:

Q: Now, Mr. Witness, who were present during the markings of these specimens?

A: During the Inventory, we called the barangay officials and the barangay captain arrived at the area, Barangay Captain Leo B. Garra, and the media representative, Christopher Yu. We also called the DOJ representative but there [was] no available DOJ [representative] at that time.61 (Underscoring supplied)

Additionally, during PO1 Torres' cross-examination, the defense counsel was able to elicit an admission proving that the marking and inventory of the seized items were conducted at least 25 minutes after the arrest of Edwin and Taladua. As shown in Edwin's and Taladua's Arrest and Booking Sheet,62 they were arrested at about 11:20 p.m. of January 17, 2019.63 On the other hand, PO1 Torres testified that Barangay Captain Garra and Yu arrived at the place of arrest at 11:30 p.m. and 11:45 p.m., respectively:

Q: And, Mr. Witness, you mentioned a while ago that during the Inventory[,] you called the barangay captain and a media representative, correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So, these witnesses whom you called went to the place of arrest after you have arrested the four (4) accused, correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: After you have allegedly confiscated the items from them, correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Who arrived first, the barangay captain or the media representative?

A: The barangay captain.

Q: And what time did the barangay captain arrive?

A: At around 11:30.

Q: How about the media representative?

A: 11:45.64 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The above testimony of PO1 Torres about the time of the arrival of the insulating witnesses was corroborated by PO1 Ty during his own cross-examination:

Q: Mr. Witness, you mentioned that when you were conducting the Inventory, a barangay captain and a reporter arrived at the place?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did the barangay captain and the reporter arrive simultaneously?

A: No, sir.

Q: Who came first?

A: It was Captain Leo Garra who arrived first.

Q: What time did the barangay captain arrive, if you remember?

A: At 11:30 in the evening, sir.

Q: How about the reporter?

A: At 11:45 in the evening, sir.65 (Emphasis supplied)

As uniformly found by the CA and the RTC, the marking and the inventory of the seized items were conducted only after the arrival of Barangay Captain Garra and Yu, at least 25 minutes from the arrest of Edwin and Taladua. Notably, in Nisperos, the Court ruled that an interval of 30 minutes between seizure of the dangerous drugs and the conduct of the inventory amounts to an unjustifiable deviation from the chain of custody rule, thus:

Here, while the purported sale transpired at 11:30 [a.m.] of June 30, 2015, the inventory took place half an hour later. While Barangay Captain Taguinod was already present at the place of transaction, DOJ representative Gangan arrived only at 12 noon. Without his presence, the inventory could not be conducted for lack of one required witness. Given that the inventory was done at the place of seizure and did not need to be performed at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team, the buy-bust team should have been able to conduct the same immediately after the seizure, were it not for the tardy arrival of the DOJ representative. Certainly, his late arrival is not a justifiable ground for the delay. The buy-bust team only had itself to blame for not ensuring that all required witnesses were readily available for them to be able to immediately conduct the inventory.

We find, therefore, that the buy-bust team unjustifiably deviated from the chain of custody rule when only one of the mandatory witnesses was readily available at the place of transaction, thus constraining the buy-­bust team to conduct the inventory only half an hour after the seizure and confiscation of the drugs. (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, the Court rules that the 25-minute interval between Edwin's and Taladua's arrest and seizure of the dangerous drugs, on the one hand, and the marking and inventory of the seized items, on the other, is unreasonable. Considering that the inventory was done at the place of seizure and did not need to be performed at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team, the buy-bust team should have been able to conduct the same immediately after the seizure, were it not for the late arrival of the insulating witnesses. Thus, the buy-bust team unjustifiably deviated from the chain of custody rule as it is clear that the marking of the seized dangerous drugs was not done immediately upon confiscation. Additionally, the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items were not conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. Thus, the totality of the prosecution's evidence actually revealed that the guidelines prevailing in jurisprudence, as consolidated in Casa and Nisperos, have been violated by the buy-bust team.

Admittedly, the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, contains a saving proviso to the effect that "noncompliance of 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 and custody over the said items." However, in order for the saving proviso to apply, the prosecution must first recognize and explain the lapse or lapses in procedure committed by the arresting officers.66 That did not happen in this case. Neither the prosecution nor the apprehending officers offered any justification for the non-compliance with the procedure required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. This unjustified departure from the chain of custody rule casts doubt on the prosecution's evidence.
The lapses committed by the prosecution and the apprehending officers are not minor. Indeed, establishing every link in the chain of custody is crucial to the preservation of the integrity, identity, and evidentiary value of the seized items. Failure to demonstrate compliance with even just one of these links creates reasonable doubt that the items confiscated from the accused are the same items offered in evidence,67 as in this case.
In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from Edwin and Taladua had not been adequately preserved. The lapses and significant gaps in the chain of custody cast serious doubts and taint the integrity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, the Court acquits Edwin and Taladua of the crimes charged against them.
Del Rosario should benefit from the acquittal of Edwin and Taladua.

Xxx."