Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: Why Missing Witnesses Led to Acquittal

In drug cases, the seized substance is the very heart of the prosecution's case. If its identity and integrity are compromised, the entire case collapses. In People v. Merando (G.R. No. 232620, August 5, 2019), the Supreme Court acquitted an accused because the police failed to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The ruling is a firm reminder that strict compliance with the rules on handling seized drugs is not a mere technicality—it is a safeguard against tampering, planting, and substitution of evidence.

The Facts of the Case

In April 2013, police officers in Pasig City conducted a buy-bust operation against Jayson Merando, who was suspected of selling marijuana. A poseur-buyer purchased one plastic sachet of suspected marijuana from Merando using marked money. After the arrest, the officer marked the sachet at the scene. The team then brought Merando and the seized item to the barangay hall, where two barangay officials signed the inventory.

Notably, no representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), or an elected public official was present during the inventory and photographing of the seized item. The photographs were taken later at the police station, not at the place of arrest. Despite these lapses, the Regional Trial Court convicted Merando, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The case reached the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The sole issue was whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Merando's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite the police's noncompliance with Section 21 of RA 9165.

The Ruling: Strict Compliance Required

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Merando. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of drugs, two elements must be proven: (1) that the sale actually took place, and (2) that the corpus delicti—the illicit drug itself—was presented in court. The drug must be proven to be the very same substance seized and examined.

Section 21 requires that immediately after seizure, the apprehending team must physically inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused (or his representative), a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official. These witnesses must sign the inventory and receive copies.

The Court stressed that the presence of these third-party witnesses is imperative not only during the inventory but also during the actual seizure. Their presence serves as an "insulating presence" against the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

Why the Prosecution Failed

In this case, none of the required third-party witnesses were present. The police had about 19 hours between receiving the tip and conducting the buy-bust—ample time to secure witnesses. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for the noncompliance. It merely relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

The Court rejected this argument. The presumption of regularity does not apply when the official act is irregular on its face. Since the police visibly deviated from the mandatory requirements of Section 21, the presumption could not save the prosecution's case.

Practical Takeaways

• Third-party witnesses are mandatory. Police must secure the presence of a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official during the seizure, inventory, and photographing of seized drugs.
• Timing matters. The inventory and photographing must be done immediately after seizure, at the place of arrest or the nearest practicable location—not later at the police station.
• The saving clause is not automatic. Noncompliance may be excused only if the prosecution proves a justifiable ground and shows that the integrity of the evidence was preserved. Mere reliance on the presumption of regularity is insufficient.
• For the accused and defense counsel. The absence of required witnesses, without a justifiable explanation, can be a strong ground for acquittal.
• For law enforcement. A buy-bust is a planned operation. The team has time to prepare and must bring the required witnesses to the scene.

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