THE Supreme Court (SC) has exonerated two respondents in a drug case due to “broken chain” in the custody of evidence.
In a 22-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC Second Division reversed and set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeals, thereby acquitting respondents Francis Valencia and Ryan Antipuesto of the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The SC ordered their release Valencia and Antipuesto 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 ruling stated.The case steamed from a 2016 buy-bust operation against Valencia and Antipuesto who were suspected of selling or delivering heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu.
Based on the testimonies of police officers involved in the raid, 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 managed to escape.
After the arrest, Dumaguete City police officer Cristanto Panggoy marked the plastic sachet with “FLV/RA-BB-01-16-16” and then placed it inside a brown envelope, which he kept in his custody.
Panggoy also prepared the inventory of the evidence at the Dumaguete police station.
Panggoy later 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 conduct of inventory at the police station and not the place of arrest was a “blatant disregard” of the immediacy requirement under Section 21 of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
Aside from this, the high court noted 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,” the SC pointed out.
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.
Besides, the SC said no separate investigating officer was assigned to the case. The court said that during the buy-bust operation, Panggoy acted as the poseur-buyer, arresting officer, and 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 stressed.
The SC said 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.