Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: Why Missing a DOJ Witness Led to Acquittal

In drug cases, the seized illegal drug is the very heart of the prosecution's case. If the police cannot prove that the drug presented in court is the same one seized from the accused, the case falls apart. In People v. Roxas (G.R. No. 242817, September 16, 2019), the Supreme Court acquitted Michael Roxas y Camarillo of illegal sale of shabu because the arresting team failed to justify the absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative during the required inventory. The ruling is a clear reminder that compliance with the chain of custody rule is not a mere technicality but a matter of substantive law.

The Facts of the Case

On the evening of November 30, 2013, operatives of the District Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group in Quezon City conducted a buy-bust operation against Roxas. A plastic sachet containing suspected shabu was recovered from him. The police marked the sachet at the place of arrest, then proceeded to the nearest barangay hall where the inventory was conducted in the presence of Barangay Captain Raulito Datiles and media representative Rey Argana. No DOJ representative was present.

The seized item tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. The Regional Trial Court convicted Roxas and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Roxas appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue: Missing DOJ Representative

The central issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the integrity of the seized drug despite the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory.

The buy-bust operation occurred on November 30, 2013. At that time, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, required the inventory and photography of seized drugs to be done in the presence of the accused or his representative, and three witnesses: an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative.

The inventory form only bore the signatures of the barangay captain and the media representative. When asked why there was no DOJ representative, the arresting officers merely said "nobody came" or "there was no available." The prosecution did not ask whether the police had exerted genuine efforts to secure a DOJ representative.

The Ruling: Integrity of Evidence Compromised

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roxas and acquitted him. The Court explained that in illegal drug cases, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty because the drug itself is the corpus delicti of the crime. The prosecution must account for each link of the chain of custody—from seizure to presentation in court.

While the Court recognizes that strict compliance may not always be possible due to varying field conditions, the saving clause in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 (later adopted into the statute) requires the prosecution to prove two things: (1) a justifiable ground for non-compliance, and (2) that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

The Court stressed that mere statements of unavailability are unacceptable. The prosecution must show that the police made genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses. Police officers have time to prepare for a buy-bust operation and should make the necessary arrangements beforehand.

In this case, the prosecution failed to elicit any explanation from the arresting officers about their efforts to secure a DOJ representative. The Court could not presume that justifiable grounds existed. This unjustified deviation compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, warranting acquittal.

Practical Takeaways

• The chain of custody rule is substantive law. Compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is strictly required. It is designed to prevent police abuses, especially since drug convictions carry life imprisonment.
• Know the applicable witness requirement. For arrests at the time of this case, the required witnesses were an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative. (Note: the law was later amended, but the library does not contain the full text of the amending statute, so the current witness requirement should be verified with a lawyer.)
• "No one was available" is not enough. If a required witness is absent, the prosecution must present evidence of genuine and sufficient efforts to secure that witness's presence. The Court cannot presume these efforts.
• The prosecution must explain lapses even if the defense does not raise them. The State has a positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody, whether or not the accused raises the issue at trial.
• For law enforcement and prosecutors: Document every effort to secure required witnesses—calls made, offices contacted, and persons approached. A bare assertion of unavailability will not save a case from acquittal.

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