Acquittal in Drug Case Highlights Strict Chain of Custody and Witness Rules

The Supreme Court, in People v. Santos (G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019), acquitted an accused charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. The ruling underscores that the prosecution must strictly comply with the chain of custody rule and the required witnesses during inventory, or risk the conviction being overturned. This decision serves as a reminder that procedural safeguards protect the integrity of evidence and the rights of the accused.

The Facts of the Case

In January 2016, police operatives conducted a buy-bust operation against Xandra Santos y Littaua in Valenzuela City. The officers recovered one plastic sachet of suspected shabu from her, and another sachet was found upon search after her arrest. The items were brought to the police station, where they were marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of the accused and a barangay kagawad. However, no representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service (NPS) was present during the inventory.

The accused denied the charges, claiming she was forcibly taken by police officers who fabricated the drug sale. The Regional Trial Court convicted her, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction.

The Issue: Compliance with the Chain of Custody Rule

The central issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody of the seized drugs. Under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the marking, physical inventory, and photography of seized items must be conducted immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused or her representative, and certain required witnesses. After the amendment by RA 10640, the required witnesses are an elected public official and a representative from the NPS or the media.

The Court acknowledged that marking at the nearest police station, rather than at the place of arrest, is acceptable when justified, such as when a crowd forms at the arrest scene. However, the absence of the NPS or media representative was not sufficiently justified.

The Ruling: Mere Claims of Unavailability Are Not Enough

The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that genuine and sufficient efforts were made to secure the presence of the required witnesses. The police officer's testimony that representatives were contacted but unavailable, without showing actual serious attempts, was deemed unacceptable. The Court emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, and cannot be presumed.

The Court reiterated that police officers have time to prepare for buy-bust operations and should make necessary arrangements to comply with the chain of custody rule. Since the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were compromised, the accused was acquitted.

Practical Takeaways

• Strict compliance is substantive law. The chain of custody rule is not a mere technicality; it protects against police abuse and ensures the integrity of evidence.
• Witnesses are mandatory. The presence of an elected public official and a representative from the NPS or media during inventory is required. Their absence must be justified with concrete, proven reasons.
• Document efforts. Police must document actual attempts to secure witnesses, not just claim unavailability.
• Prosecution bears the burden. The State must account for any lapses in the chain of custody, even if the defense does not raise them at trial.
• For the accused and families. A conviction may be overturned if the prosecution fails to prove the integrity of the seized drugs.

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