Immediate Inventory and Witness Presence: The Chain of Custody Rule in Drug Cases

The Supreme Court has once again reminded law enforcers that strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is essential in drug cases. In People v. Sioson (G.R. No. 242686, July 7, 2020), the Court acquitted an accused because the police failed to conduct an immediate inventory of seized drugs and did not have the required witnesses present during marking. The ruling underscores that procedural lapses, when left unexplained, can cast reasonable doubt on the integrity of the evidence and lead to an acquittal.

The Facts of the Case

On October 27, 2015, police operatives in Pilar, Bataan conducted a buy-bust operation against Zaldy Sioson based on a tip from a confidential asset. The poseur-buyer approached Sioson and purchased shabu worth P500.00. After the transaction, the team apprehended Sioson and recovered four additional plastic sachets of suspected shabu from his pockets.

The police marked the seized items at the place of arrest with only Sioson present. They then brought Sioson to the police station, where the inventory and photography were conducted. At the station, the inventory was witnessed by a media representative, a DOJ representative, and a barangay official.

Sioson was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted him. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction.

The Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution had adequately preserved the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, as required by the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.

The Chain of Custody Rule

Section 21(1) requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation. This must be done in the presence of:

• The accused or his representative or counsel;
• An elected public official; and
• A representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.

The law also requires that the inventory and photography be conducted at the place of arrest, or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, whichever is practicable.

The Breach in This Case

The Court found two serious violations. First, the marking of the seized items was done at the place of arrest with only Sioson present — none of the required witnesses were there. Second, the inventory and photography were conducted at the police station, not immediately at the place of arrest, and the prosecution offered no explanation for this deviation.

The Court cited People v. Sood in stressing that the presence of the three witnesses during seizure and marking protects against the practice of planting evidence. Without their insulating presence, the integrity of the seized drugs is put into question.

The Prosecution's Burden

The Court emphasized that the prosecution has a positive duty to demonstrate strict compliance with the chain of custody rule. If there are any deviations, the prosecution must acknowledge and justify them during trial. The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact — mere silence will not suffice.

In this case, the prosecution offered no explanation for the lapses. There was no showing of extraordinary circumstances, such as the remoteness of the area or threats to the safety of the officers and witnesses, that would have justified the deviation.

Practical Takeaways

• Immediate inventory is mandatory. Police must conduct the physical inventory and photography of seized drugs immediately after seizure, not at a later time or place without justification.
• Witnesses must be present during marking. The required witnesses — an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or media — must be present not only during the inventory but also during the marking of the seized items.
• Unexplained deviations lead to acquittal. When the prosecution fails to explain procedural lapses, the Court may find that the integrity of the evidence was compromised, resulting in an acquittal.
• Presumption of regularity is not enough. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot stand when there is clear non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21.
• The defense need not raise the issue. The Court may examine compliance with the chain of custody rule on its own, even if the accused did not raise it in the lower courts.

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