Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! I hope you can shed some light on something that’s been bothering me immensely. My name is Ricardo Cruz, and I was recently visiting my cousin, Mateo, at his apartment in Pasay City when police officers arrived with a search warrant. It was a chaotic situation. During the search, they found a small plastic sachet containing what they claimed was shabu on a small table near where I was sitting.

Here’s what worries me: one officer just picked up the sachet, placed it inside another clear plastic bag he pulled from his pocket, and put it away. I was right there, along with my cousin. They didn’t write anything on the sachet or the bag, didn’t take any pictures of it right then and there, and didn’t make a list of what they found while we were present. No barangay officials, media, or DOJ representatives were called to witness the inventory at the apartment.

They took us both to the station, and later, I was informed that I might be implicated because the sachet was found near me. I am genuinely confused and scared. I had nothing to do with any illegal substances. Does the way the police handled the seized item affect the case? What are my rights if they didn’t follow the proper procedure? Does the evidence still count if they didn’t mark it or make an inventory list in front of us or witnesses? I would deeply appreciate any guidance you can offer. Salamat po.

Respectfully,
Ricardo Cruz

Dear Ricardo,

Thank you for reaching out. It’s completely understandable that you feel confused and worried given the situation you described. The procedures law enforcement officers must follow when handling seized dangerous drugs are critical aspects of our legal system, designed specifically to protect individuals’ rights and ensure the integrity of the evidence presented in court.

The core issue here revolves around what is legally known as the chain of custody rule, particularly as mandated by Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This law sets specific, strict requirements for handling confiscated drugs to prevent tampering, substitution, or contamination. Failure to follow these procedures can indeed cast significant doubt on the authenticity and integrity of the seized item, potentially weakening the prosecution’s case.

The Unbroken Chain: Safeguarding Evidence in Drug Seizures

In any criminal prosecution, especially those involving illegal drugs, the state carries the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A crucial element in drug cases is the corpus delicti – the actual substance itself, proven to be a dangerous drug. Because dangerous drugs like shabu are not unique and can be easily tampered with or substituted, the law demands a meticulous process to ensure that the substance seized from an individual is the very same substance presented and identified in court. This is where the chain of custody rules, primarily outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, become paramount.

The law is explicit about the steps apprehending officers must take immediately after seizing dangerous drugs. These steps are not mere suggestions; they are mandatory requirements designed to safeguard the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused. The law mandates specific actions to preserve the identity and evidentiary value of seized items:

Section 21(1) of Rep. Act No. 9165 requires that: “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.”

This provision highlights the necessity of immediate inventory and photography, and critically, the presence of specific witnesses during this process. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) further clarify where this should happen:

Section 21(a) of the IRR states: “…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…”

In your situation, since the seizure happened during the service of a search warrant at your cousin’s apartment, the inventory and photography should ideally have been conducted right there, in your presence (as you were implicated) and your cousin’s, and with the mandatory witnesses present. Taking the item back to the station without doing this on-site raises questions about compliance.

Furthermore, the act of marking the seized item immediately upon confiscation is judicially recognized as the crucial first step in the chain of custody. Marking serves to distinguish the specific evidence seized from all other similar items, preventing switching or planting.

Jurisprudence emphasizes that: “Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference… failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties…”

Based on your account, the failure to mark the sachet immediately at the place of seizure, coupled with the absence of the required inventory, photography, and witnessing procedures under Section 21, constitutes significant deviations from the mandated protocol. While the law does allow for flexibility under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must prove two things: (1) there were valid reasons for non-compliance, and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were nonetheless properly preserved. The burden falls squarely on the prosecution to explain any gaps or irregularities in the chain of custody.

The presumption that police officers performed their duties regularly is just that – a presumption. It can be overturned by evidence showing that procedures were not followed, especially mandatory procedures laid down by law like Section 21. Significant lapses, particularly the failure to mark immediately and conduct the inventory with witnesses, create doubt about whether the item eventually examined and presented in court is the same one allegedly found near you. This doubt can be sufficient to warrant an acquittal.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Document Everything: Write down every detail you remember about the search and seizure process immediately. Note the time, the officers involved (if you recall names or badge numbers), exactly what was said, who was present, and specifically what procedures were not followed (no marking, no photos, no inventory, no witnesses at the scene).
• Inform Your Lawyer: It is crucial to secure legal counsel immediately. Provide your lawyer with all the details you documented, emphasizing the procedural lapses you observed regarding the handling of the seized sachet.
• Identify Potential Witnesses: Besides your cousin, were there other neighbors or individuals who might have observed the police presence or parts of the search, particularly the absence of barangay officials or other required witnesses? Inform your lawyer about them.
• Understand the Burden of Proof: Remember, the prosecution must prove the case against you beyond reasonable doubt. This includes proving an unbroken chain of custody for the alleged drugs. Your lawyer can challenge the admissibility or credibility of the drug evidence based on the procedural failures.
• Focus on Chain of Custody Gaps: Your defense can highlight the specific failures to comply with Section 21 – the lack of immediate marking, on-site inventory, photography, and the absence of mandatory witnesses.
• Do Not Assume Guilt: The discovery of an item near you does not automatically mean it’s yours or that you possessed it knowingly. The circumstances and the procedural integrity of the seizure are critical.
• Cooperate with Your Counsel: Be completely honest with your lawyer and follow their advice regarding your defense strategy.

The strict requirements under R.A. 9165 are safeguards against potential errors or abuses in the handling of drug evidence. Your observations about the lack of immediate marking, inventory, and witnessing are legally significant points that your lawyer can use to challenge the integrity of the evidence presented 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.