Why Police Must Follow Section 21 of RA 9165 in Drug Cases

In drug cases, the prosecution's success often hinges not just on what the police found, but on how they handled it. The Supreme Court's decision in People v. Macapundag (G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017) serves as a powerful reminder that strict compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is a matter of substantive law—not a mere technicality that can be ignored.

When police officers fail to follow the mandated procedure for inventorying and photographing seized drugs, the integrity of the evidence is compromised, and the accused may walk free.

The Facts of the Case

On March 14, 2009, an informant tipped off the Caloocan City Police that a certain "Popoy" was selling shabu in the area. A buy-bust operation was organized, with PO3 George Ardedon designated as the poseur-buyer. When Ardedon approached the accused, Puyat Macapundag, he said "Brad, paiskor naman," and handed over marked P100 bills. Macapundag then gave Ardedon one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance and kept three other sachets in his pocket.

After the arrest, the officers marked the seized items at the scene. The sachets later tested positive for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Macapundag was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Macapundag's conviction should be upheld despite the police officers' failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165—specifically, the failure to conduct an inventory and take photographs of the seized drugs in the presence of the required witnesses.

The Ruling: Acquittal for Non-Compliance

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and acquitted Macapundag. The Court emphasized that to convict an accused of illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. For illegal possession, the prosecution must show that the accused possessed a dangerous drug, that such possession was unauthorized, and that the accused freely and consciously possessed it.

Critically, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established beyond reasonable doubt through an unbroken chain of custody. The prosecution must account for each link—from the moment of seizure up to presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.

The Requirements of Section 21

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure. This must be done in the presence of:

• The accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel;
• A representative from the media;
• A representative from the Department of Justice; and
• Any elected public official.

These witnesses are required to sign the copies of the inventory and receive copies of the same.

The Prosecution's Failure

In this case, the prosecution's witnesses failed to state whether the police inventoried and photographed the seized sachets in the presence of Macapundag or his representative. They were also silent on the presence of the required witnesses—the DOJ representative, elected public official, and media member. Notably, the prosecution did not even offer any inventory or photographs as evidence.

While the Court recognized that strict compliance may not always be possible under varied field conditions, it stressed that the prosecution bears the burden of proving a justifiable cause for non-compliance. In this case, the prosecution offered no explanation at all.

Practical Takeaways

• Compliance with Section 21 is substantive, not procedural. The chain of custody rule protects the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs. Courts cannot treat it as a mere technicality that may be brushed aside.

• The prosecution must explain any lapse. If police fail to conduct inventory or take photographs, the prosecution must present evidence explaining the justifiable grounds for non-compliance. Courts cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

• Marking alone is not enough. While the officers in this case marked the seized items at the scene, marking is only one link in the chain. The absence of inventory, photographs, and required witnesses compromised the evidence's integrity.

• The presence of witnesses matters. The required witnesses—media, DOJ, and elected official—serve as safeguards against planting or tampering of evidence. Their absence, unexplained, can be fatal to the prosecution's case.

• For law enforcement and litigators. Police officers must be thoroughly trained on Section 21 procedures, and prosecutors must be ready to prove compliance or justify any deviation. For the accused, a demonstrated breach of the chain of custody can be a strong ground for acquittal.

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