Acquittal in Drug Case Shows Why Procedural Lapses Matter

The Supreme Court has once again reminded law enforcers that in drug cases, how evidence is handled can be as important as what was seized. In People v. Sampa (G.R. No. 242160, July 8, 2019), the Court acquitted an accused despite the prosecution's claim that she was caught selling shabu. The reason: the PDEA agents committed serious procedural lapses in marking, inventorying, and photographing the seized drugs, and they failed to secure the presence of the required witnesses.

The case is a crucial lesson for anyone facing drug charges, and for law enforcement, on the strict requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

What Happened in the Case

On February 24, 2014, PDEA agents conducted a buy-bust operation in Quezon City against a suspect named "Mike," later identified as Jan Jan Tayan. A poseur-buyer transacted with Tayan inside a Jollibee restaurant. A woman, Aiza Sampa, allegedly handed a plastic sachet of shabu to Tayan, who then gave it to the poseur-buyer. Both were arrested.

The arresting team did not mark, inventory, or photograph the seized sachet at the place of arrest. Instead, they left the scene due to an alleged commotion. The marking was done inside their service vehicle, and the inventory and photographing were conducted later at their office in Camp Vicente Lim, Laguna—hours away from the arrest site.

Only one media representative witnessed the inventory. No representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or any elected public official was present. The trial court convicted both accused, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court acquitted Sampa.

The Issue: Did the Police Follow the Chain of Custody Rule?

The central question was whether the prosecution had preserved the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, which are the corpus delicti (the body of the crime) in illegal drug cases.

Under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, after seizing drugs, police must immediately conduct the following in the presence of the accused (or their representative or counsel), a media representative, a DOJ representative, and any elected public official:

1. Marking – affixing the initials and signature of the apprehending officer on the seized item
2. Physical inventory
3. Photographing

The Supreme Court has clarified that marking should ideally be done immediately upon confiscation, at the place of arrest. If this is impracticable, the law allows the inventory and photographing to be done at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team.

The Court's Ruling: Procedural Lapses Created Reasonable Doubt

The Court found several fatal flaws in the PDEA's handling of the evidence:

No marking at the place of arrest. The sachet was marked inside the service vehicle, not at the Jollibee where the arrest happened.

No immediate inventory and photographing. These were done hours later in Laguna, not at the nearest police station or office.

No valid justification for the delay. The PDEA claimed a commotion occurred, but the prosecution presented no evidence of its details. The Court noted that "commotion" has become a convenient excuse, but mere invocation does not amount to substantial compliance.

No insulating witnesses. The team did not even try to secure a DOJ representative, and the only media witness present merely signed the certificate of inventory without actually witnessing it. The Court emphasized that the presence of these witnesses at the time of seizure is mandatory—not just during the inventory—because their presence protects against planting, switching, or tampering of evidence.

The saving clause did not apply. While Section 21 allows non-compliance under justifiable grounds if the integrity of the evidence is preserved, the prosecution must explain the lapses. Here, it offered no credible explanation. The chain of custody was broken at its very first link.

Because of these lapses, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove Sampa's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted her.

Practical Takeaways

• In drug cases, procedure is everything. The prosecution must prove not only that drugs were sold but also that the exact drugs seized are the ones presented in court.
• The three-witness rule is mandatory. The presence of a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official during marking, inventory, and photographing is required by law. Their absence, without a justifiable reason, can destroy the case.
• Marking must be done immediately at the place of arrest. Doing it later, even in a police vehicle, can break the chain of custody.
• A claim of "commotion" is not enough. Police must present evidence to justify any delay in complying with Section 21.
• For the accused, these lapses can be a valid defense. If the police failed to follow the rules, the seized drugs may be rendered inadmissible, leading to an acquittal.

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