Broken chain of custody merits acquittal
The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.
Text size
The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.
In the prosecution of an illegal possession of drugs case, it is necessary to prove not only the accused’s possession of illegal drugs, but also the unbroken chain of custody of the drugs seized. This is to ensure that the drugs presented as evidence in court are indeed the ones confiscated from the accused.
With that wanting, the court will be constrained to acquit the accused. Here is an example of that.
The accused, in a buy-bust operation, was caught in the sale and possession of illicit drugs. The drugs were confiscated from him and placed in the custody of the police authorities. The trial court convicted the accused. This was affirmed by the appellate court.
At the Supreme Court, however, the accused questioned, among other things, the chain of custody of the drugs. And since the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain, this resulted in his acquittal.
Thus, the Highest Court ruled: “To establish the identity and existence of the drugs in question, the prosecution needs to present evidence showing a continuous and unbroken chain of custody over the said substances. In the seminal case of Mallillin v People, we broke down what such evidence demands. “As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.
“It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was, and what happened to it while in the witness’s possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
“These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
“In People v Kamad, on the other hand, we identified the four essential links that make up the chain of custody of drugs seized during an official operation, to wit: [F]irst, 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.
“After consideration of the issues raised in this appeal, coupled with a thorough examination of the available records, we find that the prosecution was not able to establish the third and fourth links of the chain of custody over the shabu allegedly seized during the buy-bust operation.
“To start, the prosecution’s evidence failed to fully account for the third link — specifically, the turnover of the allegedly seized shabu from PO3 Villela to the forensic chemist, PCInsp. Huelgas. While the records indicate that PO1 Estrada personally delivered such shabu to the Regional Crime Laboratory, where it was received by PO3 Villela, the prosecution inexplicably failed to present PO3 Villela as a witness to testify on the circumstances of such receipt.
“The non-presentation of PO3 Villela thus resulted in a fatal break in the continuity of the custodial chain.
“In People v Hernandez, we characterized a similar omission by the prosecution as a breach in the third link of the custodial chain: Anent the third link, PO1 Villarino testified that he and PO2 Elauria personally delivered the drug specimens to the crime laboratory, together with the Requests for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test.
“While it appears that the requests were stamp-received by PO2 Comia, the latter was not presented in court to shed light on the condition of the contraband when it was received, as well as the necessary precautions employed to ensure that the seized illegal drugs were not contaminated, changed, or altered while in PO2 Comia’s custody.
“This is in clear disregard of the mandate that every link in the chain must be clearly established, describing how and from whom the seized evidence was received, its condition when delivered to the next link in the chain and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity.
“Indeed, with the absence of PO3 Villela’s testimony, there is no evidence on record that could establish the condition of the seized shabu from the moment it was received by said officer up to the time it was retrieved for examination by PCInsp. Huelgas.
“As they stand, the records are completely silent as to what precautions have been employed by PO3 Villela to ensure that the seized shabu were not contaminated, changed, or altered prior to its retrieval by PCInsp. Huelgas. The Court will not, as it cannot, speculate on such matters not supported by the evidence.”
The facts and quoted portions of the redacted decision are from G.R. 264409 (13 April 2026).
