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

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted an accused charged with illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs 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 case of People v. Angeles (G.R. No. 237355, November 21, 2018) reminds law enforcers and prosecutors that procedural compliance is not optional—it is essential to protect the accused's right to be presumed innocent.

The Facts of the Case

On November 1, 2013, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation in Caloocan City against a suspected drug peddler. The poseur-buyer successfully purchased two plastic sachets of suspected shabu from the accused. The police then brought the accused and the seized items to the police station, where an inventory was conducted.

However, the inventory was done without the presence of the three witnesses required by law: an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice. The police also conducted the inventory at the station rather than at the place of arrest, without explaining why this was necessary.

The Legal Framework: Section 21, RA 9165

Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that seized drugs be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation. This must be done in the presence of:

• The accused or his representative or counsel;
• An elected public official;
• A representative from the media; and
• A representative from the Department of Justice.

All witnesses must sign the inventory and receive copies. The law requires these witnesses to be present at the time of the warrantless arrest, not merely called in later for the inventory. Their presence protects against the dangers of planting, switching, or contamination of evidence.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The police had around 22 hours between receiving the tip and conducting the operation—ample time to secure the required witnesses. Yet they made no effort to do so.

The Court rejected the lower courts' reliance on the presumption of regularity in police performance. This presumption cannot overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Where there are clear procedural lapses, the presumption of regularity cannot stand.

The Court also corrected the Court of Appeals' ruling that the defense "waived" its right to question the procedural lapses by not asking probing questions on cross-examination. The burden of proving compliance with Section 21 rests solely on the prosecution. It never shifts to the accused.

Practical Takeaways

• Presence of witnesses is mandatory. Police must secure the three required witnesses before conducting a buy-bust operation, not after the fact.
• The prosecution must explain any lapse. If police fail to comply with Section 21, the prosecution must acknowledge the lapse and provide justifiable grounds for it. Silence is fatal to the case.
• The presumption of regularity is not a shield. Courts cannot rely on the presumption of regularity in police performance when the records show blatant disregard of established procedures.
• The accused need not prove anything. The burden of proof in criminal cases rests with the prosecution. The accused may simply rely on the presumption of innocence.
• Timing matters. The 22-hour gap between the tip and the operation showed that the police had sufficient time to comply but chose not to.

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