How important is chain of custody?

01/24/24

The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted two individuals of drug charges due to a broken chain of custody.

In a 22-page decision, the SC Second Division reversed and set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) and acquitted Francis Valencia and Ryan Antipuesto of charges of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

They were ordered to be released from confinement unless they were being held for some other legal grounds.

"Receipts showing the chain of custody cannot be altered or modified while the specimen is in transit to the next custodian. Even a minimal change in the marking stated in these documents is fatal to the identity and integrity of corpus delicti," the SC said.

The case

In 2016, the two were accused of selling or delivering heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet that contained shabu.

According to the testimonies of the police officers, they received reports that Antipuesto was engaged in the illegal drug trade, prompting them to conduct a buy-bust operation where Valencia brought out a plastic sachet containing shabu.

Valencia was arrested while Antipuesto escaped. After the arrest, Dumaguete City Police Officer I Cristanto Panggoy marked the plastic sachet with "FLV/RA-BB-01-16-16" and then placed it inside a brown evidence envelope, which he kept with him.

Panggoy also prepared the inventory at the Dumaguete Police Station.

After this, Panggoy returned the sachet to the envelope, which he sealed and signed. He kept sole custody of the envelope until he brought it to the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory.

In acquitting Valencia and Antipuesto, the Supreme Court said that the taking of inventory at the police station and not the place of arrest was a blatant disregard to the immediacy requirement under Section 21 of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

Aside from this, the Court said that there were "glaring irregularities" in the chain of custody.

"The fatal error involved a struck-out portion of the stated marking in a document showing the chain of custody. This alteration broke the chain, tainting the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti," it said.

The SC noted that the letter request for a laboratory examination used "FLV/RA-BB-01-16-2016," but that this was altered to remove the "20," making it similar to the "FLV/RA-BB-01-16-16" marking on the sachet.

According to the Court, no separate investigating officer was assigned to the case. It said that Panggoy acted as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, the seizing officer, and the evidence custodian.

"While Panggoy was responsible as seizing officer and evidence custodian, he had no authority to modify the Letter Request reflecting the chain of custody. Otherwise, it would be very easy to manipulate the paper trial recording the movement of the corpus delicti," the SC said.

The SC stressed that documents must accurately reflect the marking on the drug and the series of transfers.

The decision was promulgated in July 2023 but released only recently. It was penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.—AOL, GMA Integrated News