Chain of Custody Safeguarding Drug Evidence and Ensuring Fair Trials

The Supreme Court has once again underscored that in drug cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the offense but also the integrity of the seized drugs—the corpus delicti. In People v. Rasos, Jr. (G.R. No. 243639, September 18, 2019), the Court acquitted an accused because police officers failed to comply with the mandatory witness requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended. The ruling is a firm reminder that procedural safeguards exist to protect the innocent from wrongful conviction, especially in buy-bust operations where the risk of evidence planting is high.

The Case

Jose Rasos, Jr. was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs after a buy-bust operation in Manila in September 2015. The police claimed Rasos sold a sachet of shabu to a poseur-buyer and that another sachet was recovered from his pocket. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of illegal sale, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Rasos.

The Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution had proven Rasos's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly whether the police complied with Section 21 of RA 9165 in preserving the integrity of the seized drugs.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the police committed several violations of Section 21. The Court emphasized that the presence of an elected public official during the inventory and photographing of seized items is mandatory. In this case, no elected official witnessed the inventory, and the police's bare claim that they sought barangay assistance "to no avail" was rejected as a hollow excuse. The Court also noted that the accused's signature was missing from the inventory without explanation, no photographs were taken during the inventory, and the markings on the sachets were not made by the apprehending officer. These lapses, left unacknowledged and unjustified, compromised the integrity of the evidence, making the seized drugs inadmissible.

Why This Matters

The ruling reinforces that the presumption of regularity in police operations cannot defeat the constitutional presumption of innocence. The burden of proof never shifts to the accused, and a weak defense does not excuse the prosecution's failure to prove its case. The Court stressed that the mandatory presence of witnesses—an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media—protects against planting, contamination, or loss of evidence. Police officers must secure these witnesses at the time of seizure, not merely call them in later for the inventory.

Practical Takeaways

• Compliance with Section 21 is mandatory. The presence of an elected public official and a representative of the NPS or media during inventory and photographing is not a mere formality.
• Explain any lapse. If police fail to comply, they must clearly state justifiable grounds in their sworn statements. Unexplained breaches can result in acquittal.
• The accused's signature matters. The inventory must be signed by the accused or his representative, or the police must note "refused to sign."
• Marking must be done by the officer. The apprehending officer or poseur-buyer must place his initials and signature on the seized items.
• Presumption of innocence prevails. A weak defense does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.