Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! My name is Gregorio Panganiban, and I am writing to you with a heavy heart and a lot of confusion regarding my cousin, Miguel. Last month, he was arrested in what the police called a ‘buy-bust’ operation near a local convenience store in our barangay in Pasig City. We are devastated, as Miguel has always been a good person, though he has struggled recently.

What troubles me deeply is how the arrest happened. I wasn’t there, but my aunt was nearby and saw them take Miguel away. She said the police officers quickly put him in their vehicle after a brief commotion. She didn’t see them count anything, make a list, or take pictures of the items they supposedly found on him right there. It all happened so fast.

Later, at the police station, we heard that the small plastic sachet they claim Miguel sold was only marked by an investigator, not the arresting officer, and this was done inside the station, hours after the arrest. There were no barangay officials or media people present during the arrest or even at the station when they supposedly inventoried the items. We feel like something wasn’t done right, but we don’t know the rules.

Could these procedural issues affect Miguel’s case? Does the law require the police to do specific things when they seize evidence like drugs? We are worried that the evidence might not be what they claim it is. We don’t have much money, and the thought of him being wrongly convicted because procedures weren’t followed is terrifying. Can you shed some light on this for us, Atty.?

Salamat po,

Gregorio Panganiban

Dear Gregorio,

Musta Atty! Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns about your cousin, Miguel. It’s completely understandable that you and your family are distressed and confused about the circumstances surrounding his arrest, particularly regarding the handling of the evidence.

The situation you described touches upon a critical aspect of criminal procedure in the Philippines, especially in cases involving dangerous drugs. Philippine law, specifically Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), establishes very strict procedures that law enforcement officers must follow when seizing and handling illegal drugs. These rules, often referred to as the ‘chain of custody’ requirements, are designed to protect the integrity of the evidence and ensure the rights of the accused are upheld. Failure to follow these procedures meticulously can indeed raise serious questions about the validity of the evidence presented against an accused person and may significantly impact the outcome of the case.

Ensuring Fairness: The Importance of the Chain of Custody in Drug Cases

In any criminal prosecution, especially for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the State carries the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A crucial element the prosecution must establish is the corpus delicti – Latin for ‘body of the crime’. In drug cases, the corpus delicti is the illegal drug itself. It’s not enough to simply allege that drugs were seized; the prosecution must prove that the substance presented in court is the very same substance confiscated from the accused at the time of arrest.

To ensure this, the law mandates a specific procedure for the custody and control of seized dangerous drugs. This is known as the chain of custody. Think of it as a documented trail showing every person who handled the evidence, from the moment it was seized until it is presented in court. The purpose is to guarantee the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, preventing any opportunity for planting, tampering, switching, or contamination.

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 lays down the initial steps:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) further clarify this requirement:

(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official 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, further that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items;

These provisions are not mere suggestions; they are safeguards. The immediate marking of the seized item by the arresting officer, the conduct of a physical inventory, and the taking of photographs are critical first links in the chain. Moreover, the presence of insulating witnesses – a representative from the media or DOJ, and an elected public official – is mandated to prevent any suspicion of irregularity or frame-up.

Your observation that the marking was done later at the station by someone other than the arresting officer, and the apparent absence of the required witnesses and immediate inventory/photography at the scene, points to potential breaks in the chain of custody. Jurisprudence emphasizes the importance of proving the corpus delicti and maintaining an unbroken chain:

The Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 when the dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.

While the law provides a ‘saving clause’ (the second ‘Provided’ in the IRR quote above) allowing for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, the burden is on the prosecution to recognize the lapses and provide a valid explanation, demonstrating that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were nevertheless preserved. Simply ignoring the procedural requirements is not an option.

Furthermore, courts cannot simply rely on the presumption that police officers performed their duties regularly, especially when clear procedural lapses cast doubt on the integrity of the operation and the evidence seized. The constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent is paramount.

The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence favoring the accused. … Where, like here, the proof adduced against the accused has not even overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not be a factor to adjudge the accused guilty of the crime charged.

Therefore, the procedural irregularities you noted are significant and could form the basis of a strong defense for your cousin, Miguel. If the prosecution cannot convincingly establish every link in the chain of custody and justify any deviations from the mandated procedure, it may fail to prove the corpus delicti, potentially leading to an acquittal.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Engage a Lawyer Immediately: Secure the services of a competent criminal defense lawyer who specializes in drug cases as soon as possible. They can properly evaluate the specifics of Miguel’s arrest.
• Document Everything: Write down all the details your aunt observed, including the time, place, officers involved (if known), and the specific actions (or lack thereof) regarding the handling of evidence.
• Focus on Section 21 Non-Compliance: Instruct the lawyer to meticulously examine the police reports, affidavits, and testimonies for compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
• Challenge the Marking: Question why the marking wasn’t done immediately by the arresting officer at the place of arrest and why it was done later by an investigator at the station.
• Highlight Witness Absence: Emphasize the lack of the mandatory witnesses (media/DOJ representative and elected official) during the seizure and inventory process.
• Question Inventory and Photos: Point out the failure to conduct an immediate physical inventory and take photographs of the seized item as required by law.
• Demand Justification for Lapses: If the prosecution invokes the saving clause, demand clear and justifiable reasons for the non-compliance and proof that the evidence’s integrity was preserved despite the lapses.
• Counter Presumption of Regularity: Argue strongly that the documented procedural breaches negate any presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the arresting team.

Dealing with a situation like this is incredibly stressful, Gregorio. Understanding the legal requirements surrounding the chain of custody is crucial for protecting your cousin’s rights. These procedures exist to ensure fairness and prevent miscarriages of justice. Raising these issues diligently through legal counsel is Miguel’s best path forward.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.