Dear Atty. Gab

Musta Atty! My name is Ricardo Cruz, and I am writing to you because I am in a very distressing situation and desperately need some legal perspective. Just last week, I was arrested near my home in Barangay San Roque, Quezon City. The police claim it was a buy-bust operation and that I sold a small sachet of ‘shabu’ to an undercover officer.

Honestly, Atty., the whole thing felt very sudden and confusing. I was walking home from the sari-sari store when a man I didn’t know approached me and started asking strange questions. He seemed insistent, and then suddenly, several other men appeared, identified themselves as police, and arrested me. They said I had sold drugs to the first man for P500.

During the arrest, things happened so fast. They searched me right there on the street. I remember asking if a barangay official could be present, but they seemed to ignore me. They claimed they found the marked money on me, which I don’t understand because I only had my change from the store. They showed me a small sachet they said I sold, but I never gave anyone anything like that. They put some markings on it, but I don’t recall them taking photos right there or making a formal list of items with any witnesses like a media person or someone from the DOJ, as I later heard should happen.

Now I’m facing a serious charge under R.A. 9165, and I am terrified. I feel like I was set up, and I’m worried about whether the police followed the correct procedures. Was the arrest valid? What about the handling of the alleged drugs? Can they use that against me if they didn’t follow the rules I heard about? I don’t know my rights in this situation. Any guidance you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

Hoping for your advice,

Ricardo Cruz

Dear Ricardo

Musta Atty! Thank you for reaching out. I understand this is an incredibly stressful and frightening time for you. Facing charges related to R.A. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, is a serious matter, and it’s crucial to understand the legal principles involved, especially concerning buy-bust operations and the handling of evidence.

In essence, for the prosecution to secure a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, they must prove beyond reasonable doubt certain key elements: the identity of the buyer and seller, the exchange of consideration (like marked money), the delivery of the illegal drug, and importantly, they must present the actual drug seized (the corpus delicti) in court. The procedure for handling this seized evidence is vital, as failure to comply can cast doubt on the integrity of the drug presented.

Understanding Buy-Bust Operations and the Chain of Custody Rule

Buy-bust operations are recognized legal methods used by law enforcement to apprehend individuals involved in the illegal drug trade. It’s a form of entrapment, where officers pose as buyers to catch sellers in the act (in flagrante delicto). While these operations are legitimate, they are also susceptible to potential abuse, which is why the law and jurisprudence impose strict requirements on how they must be conducted and how evidence, particularly the seized drugs, must be handled.

The prosecution carries the burden of proving not only that a sale took place but also that the specific item seized from the suspect is the very same item presented in court. This is where the concept of the chain of custody becomes paramount. It refers to the documented and unbroken handling of the seized item, ensuring its integrity from the moment of confiscation until its presentation as evidence.

Philippine law, specifically Section 21 of R.A. 9165, outlines the mandatory procedure for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs. This procedure is designed to safeguard the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items and protect the accused from tampering or planting of evidence. The law requires specific steps immediately after seizure:

“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. 9165, as originally worded)

This means the inventory and photographing must ideally happen right at the place of arrest, witnessed by the accused (or representative/counsel), a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. Their signatures on the inventory receipt are crucial. The purpose is to create an immediate, verifiable record of what was seized.

While police officers are generally presumed to perform their duties regularly, this presumption is not conclusive and can be overturned if there’s evidence of significant procedural lapses, especially concerning the chain of custody. The Supreme Court often scrutinizes the details of buy-bust operations:

“It is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation—’from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of sale.’ […] The manner by which the initial contact was made, x x x the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the ‘buy-bust money’, and the delivery of the illegal drug x x x must be the subject of strict scrutiny by the courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.”

Your concern about the lack of witnesses like a barangay official, media, or DOJ representative during the inventory and photographing stage is legally significant. Failure to strictly comply with Section 21 raises questions about the integrity of the seized evidence. However, the courts have also recognized that substantial compliance might be acceptable under certain justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must convincingly demonstrate that the chain of custody remained unbroken despite deviations from the procedure.

“jurisprudence is consistent in stating that substantial compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible. […] noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized […] as the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case.”

Therefore, the absence of the required witnesses or immediate inventory/photography does not automatically lead to acquittal. The prosecution needs to explain the reasons for non-compliance and prove that the integrity of the corpus delicti was nonetheless preserved through every link of the chain: from marking at the site, to handling by the investigating officer, delivery to the forensic chemist, and presentation in court. Any unexplained gap or irregularity in this chain weakens the prosecution’s case significantly. Your defense would likely focus on highlighting these procedural lapses to cast reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the evidence presented against you.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Secure Legal Counsel Immediately: The most critical step is to hire a lawyer experienced in handling drug cases. They can properly advise you and represent your interests throughout the legal process.
• Document Everything: Write down every detail you remember about the incident – the time, place, the appearance of the individuals involved, what was said, how the search and arrest were conducted, and specifically how the alleged drugs were handled (marking, inventory, photos, presence/absence of witnesses).
• Identify Potential Witnesses: Think if anyone else might have seen the incident unfold, even from a distance. Their testimony could be valuable.
• Focus on Procedural Lapses: Discuss with your lawyer the specific points you raised: the request for a barangay official, the apparent lack of required witnesses during inventory/photography under Sec. 21, and any doubts about the marking of the evidence.
• Understand the Burden of Proof: Remember, the prosecution must prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This includes proving both the sale and the unbroken chain of custody of the specific drug allegedly seized from you.
• Preserve Your Right to Remain Silent: Do not discuss the details of your case with anyone except your lawyer. Anything you say could potentially be used against you.
• Cooperate with Your Lawyer: Be completely honest with your lawyer about all the facts so they can build the strongest possible defense strategy.
• Prepare for Court Proceedings: Understand that this will be a challenging process. Your lawyer will guide you on court appearances and procedures.

Facing such a serious accusation is undoubtedly overwhelming, Ricardo. By understanding the legal requirements for buy-bust operations and the critical importance of the chain of custody rule, and by working closely with competent legal counsel, you can effectively assert your rights and challenge any potential irregularities in the case against you.

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.