Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! I hope this email finds you well. My name is Mario Rivera, and I’m writing to you with a heavy heart and a lot of confusion regarding my nephew, Ricky. He was recently arrested in what the police called a buy-bust operation in our barangay in Quezon City. They claim they caught him selling a small amount of shabu.

While Ricky isn’t perfect, Atty., I’m very worried about how the arrest happened. According to neighbors who saw parts of it, the police officers who arrested him just took the alleged sachet and put it in their pocket. They didn’t seem to list it down or take pictures right there. My nephew said they only showed him the sachet again and marked it when they got to the police station, hours later. Also, there was no barangay official, media person, or anyone from the DOJ present during the arrest or even at the station when they supposedly inventoried the item. It was just the police and my nephew, who was obviously scared and confused.

I read somewhere that there are strict rules the police must follow when they seize drugs, like inventorying and photographing them immediately with specific witnesses. It seems none of that happened correctly in Ricky’s case. Does this mean the evidence against him might not be valid? Could the case be dismissed because the police didn’t follow the rules? I’m worried they might have planted the evidence or mixed it up. We don’t have much money for a lawyer, so any guidance you can provide would be deeply appreciated.

Salamat po, Atty.
Mario Rivera
(From: musta_atty_mario@email.com)

---

Dear Mario,

Thank you for reaching out. I understand your concern for your nephew, Ricky, and the distress this situation is causing your family. Dealing with arrests, especially involving drug allegations, can be incredibly stressful, and questions about procedural correctness are valid and important.

The procedures police must follow during the seizure and handling of dangerous drugs are indeed strict, outlined primarily in Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. These rules, particularly concerning the chain of custody, are designed to protect the integrity of the evidence and safeguard the rights of the accused. Failure to comply can significantly impact the prosecution’s case, as it casts doubt on whether the substance presented in court is the same substance allegedly seized from the individual.

Guardians of Evidence: Understanding Chain of Custody in Drug Cases

The law is very specific about how authorities must handle confiscated dangerous drugs. This meticulous process is known as the chain of custody. Its purpose is to ensure that the item seized is the very same item presented as evidence in court, free from tampering, substitution, or contamination. Think of it as an unbroken chain documenting every person who handled the evidence from the moment of seizure until its presentation in court.

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides the mandatory procedure. It emphasizes the importance of immediate action by the apprehending team. The law requires:

“(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.” (Section 21(1), R.A. No. 9165)

This requirement is crucial. The physical inventory and photographing must happen immediately at the place of arrest or, if not practicable, at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team. Critically, this must be done in the presence of specific insulating witnesses: the accused (or their representative/counsel), a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official (like a Barangay Kagawad or Chairman).

Marking the seized item is the foundational step in this chain. Ideally, the officer marks the seized item (e.g., with initials and date) immediately upon confiscation and before moving it. This initial marking helps ensure that the item tracked through the chain is the same one seized.

“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… A failure to mark at the time of taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of the chain of custody that the law requires.”

The presence of the required witnesses during the inventory and photography is not a mere formality. These witnesses act as impartial observers, safeguarding against potential abuses like planting evidence or procedural shortcuts. Their signatures on the inventory receipt confirm that the procedures were followed, lending credibility to the seizure process.

Now, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 do provide a saving clause:

“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;” (Section 21(a), IRR of R.A. No. 9165)

However, this is not an automatic excuse. For this proviso to apply, the prosecution bears the burden of proving two things: (1) there were justifiable grounds for the non-compliance, and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence were properly preserved despite the deviation. The apprehending officers must recognize the lapses and explain them satisfactorily in court. Simply ignoring the procedure without justification is generally fatal to the prosecution’s case.

If, as you described, the inventory and photography were not done immediately, the marking was delayed, and the required witnesses were absent without any valid explanation offered by the police, these constitute significant deviations from the mandated procedure. Such lapses break the chain of custody and raise reasonable doubt about the identity and integrity of the seized drug (corpus delicti). Without proof of the corpus delicti, the prosecution cannot establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, potentially leading to an acquittal.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Document Everything: Encourage Ricky (and potential witnesses like neighbors) to write down exactly what happened during the arrest and handling of evidence, noting the time, place, who was present, and what procedures were (or were not) followed.
• Secure Legal Counsel: It is crucial for Ricky to have a lawyer, perhaps from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) if finances are tight. The lawyer can scrutinize the police reports and testimonies for procedural lapses.
• Challenge the Chain of Custody: Ricky’s lawyer should be prepared to vigorously challenge the prosecution’s evidence by highlighting every deviation from the Section 21 procedure during cross-examination and in legal arguments.
• Identify Witnesses: If neighbors or others witnessed the arrest and can confirm the lack of immediate inventory, photography, or presence of required witnesses, their testimony could be valuable.
• Focus on Justification: During trial, pay close attention to whether the prosecution attempts to justify the non-compliance. If they don’t, or if the justification is weak, the defense should emphasize this failure.
• Preservation of Integrity: The defense should question how the integrity of the evidence was preserved if it wasn’t marked immediately and was handled outside the view of impartial witnesses before reaching the station.
• Motion to Suppress Evidence: Depending on the strategy, Ricky’s lawyer might consider filing a motion to suppress the drug evidence based on the illegal seizure due to procedural violations.

The procedural safeguards in R.A. 9165 are there for a reason – to ensure fairness and prevent wrongful convictions based on compromised evidence. Highlighting the failure to follow these mandatory rules is a critical aspect of defending against drug charges.

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.