Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: When Police Lapses Lead to Acquittal

In drug cases, the seized drugs are the very heart of the prosecution's case. If the police cannot prove that those drugs are the same ones taken from the accused—untampered and properly handled—the case collapses. In People v. Mamarinta (G.R. No. 243589, September 9, 2019), the Supreme Court reminded law enforcers that the chain of custody rule is not a mere technicality. It is substantive law, and failing to follow it can result in acquittal, even when the accused were caught in a buy-bust operation.

The Facts of the Case

On July 19, 2015, police operatives in Pasig City conducted a buy-bust operation against suspected drug pushers. A poseur-buyer approached Andidato Mamarinta and Jack Batuan, who allegedly sold him one sachet of shabu. The police then arrested both men and confiscated additional sachets from them.

During the inventory of the seized drugs, only a barangay kagawad was present. No representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service (NPS) attended. The police claimed they tried to contact these witnesses but none arrived because the operation happened at around 2:20 a.m.

The Regional Trial Court convicted both men, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court ruled that the absence of the required witnesses was justified because of the "unholy hour" of the operation.

The Issue

The central question was whether the police substantially complied with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This provision requires that the physical inventory and photography of seized drugs be done in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the NPS or the media.

The Ruling: Strict Compliance Required

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted both accused. The Court held that the police failed to justify their non-compliance with the chain of custody rule.

The Court noted that the applicable rules were those in effect at the time of the operation. The police officers who testified about calling the media and NPS representatives had no personal knowledge of those calls. One officer said a certain PO2 Santos made the call, while another claimed the chief of the unit called. Neither PO2 Santos nor the chief was presented as a witness. The Supreme Court, citing People v. Jodan, ruled that such testimony is hearsay.

The police also never explained why no NPS representative was secured. They failed to show that they coordinated with the required witnesses before the operation. Citing People v. Misa, the Court noted that officers cannot simply expect these representatives to be available at a moment's notice.

Why This Matters

The Court was emphatic: the procedure in Section 21 is a matter of substantive law, not a mere procedural technicality. It cannot be brushed aside as an impediment to convicting drug suspects. The prosecution has a positive duty to acknowledge and justify any deviations from the rule. Mere statements that witnesses were unavailable are not enough. The police must show genuine and sufficient efforts to secure their presence.

Practical Takeaways

• The chain of custody is crucial. The prosecution must prove with moral certainty that the seized drugs are the same items taken from the accused, from seizure to court presentation.
• Witnesses at inventory are mandatory. Under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, the inventory must be witnessed by the accused (or a representative), an elected public official, and a representative of the NPS or media.
• Excuses must be proven, not claimed. Police must present actual evidence of their efforts to secure the required witnesses. Hearsay testimony about phone calls is insufficient.
• Substantive compliance is not enough. The rule requires strict observance. Lapses can be excused only if justifiable grounds are proven and the integrity of the evidence is preserved.

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