Safeguarding Rights Strict Compliance With Drug Evidence Rules Ensures Fair Trials

The Supreme Court has once again underscored that in drug cases, the procedure for handling seized evidence is not a mere technicality. In People v. De Castro (G.R. No. 243386, September 2, 2019), the Court acquitted an accused because the police failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The ruling is a firm reminder that the presumption of innocence prevails when law enforcers disregard the rules designed to protect the integrity of evidence.

The Facts of the Case

In August 2010, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation against Hilario De Castro in Muntinlupa City. The poseur-buyer allegedly purchased shabu from De Castro, who was also found with additional sachets. He was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165.

The police marked the seized items at the scene. However, they did not conduct the required inventory there. Instead, they brought De Castro and the drugs to their office, explaining that people were starting to gather and that they lacked the necessary documents. At the office, they attempted to call representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official, but no one arrived. The inventory was eventually conducted without these required witnesses.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted De Castro, relying on the presumption of regularity in the performance of police duties. The Supreme Court reversed these rulings and acquitted him.

The Issue

The central issue was whether the prosecution had proven De Castro's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been preserved despite the police officers' non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165.

The Ruling: Strict Compliance Is the Rule

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted De Castro. The Court reiterated that in drug cases, the confiscated drug is the corpus delicti — the very body of the crime. Its identity and integrity must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody.

Section 21 of RA 9165, as it stood at the time of the offense, requires that the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure, 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 DOJ.

The Court emphasized that these witnesses should be physically present at the time of the inventory, which must be done at the place of seizure. A buy-bust operation is a planned activity, so the police can easily arrange for the witnesses to be present.

While the Court has recognized that strict compliance may not always be possible under field conditions, any deviation must be justified. The prosecution must prove: (a) that there was a justifiable ground for non-compliance, and (b) that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

The Police Failed to Justify Their Deviation

In this case, the police offered flimsy excuses. They claimed they moved to the office to avoid commotion and because they lacked inventory sheets. The Court found these reasons unacceptable. Notably, the police admitted they merely tried to "call in" the witnesses after the buy-bust operation had already been completed.

The Court warned that this practice — not bringing the witnesses to the intended place of arrest when they could easily do so, and calling them only after the fact — defeats the very purpose of the law. The presence of independent witnesses prevents the planting of drugs and insulates the process from abuse.

The Court also cited People v. Lim, which lists the only recognized justifications for non-compliance, such as the remoteness of the area, threats to witness safety, or earnest but futile efforts to secure witnesses. None of these circumstances existed in De Castro's case.

Presumption of Innocence Prevails

The Court stressed that the constitutional presumption of innocence is stronger than the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. When police officers blatantly disregard established procedures, the presumption of regularity cannot stand.

Because the prosecution failed to prove the integrity of the seized drugs, it also failed to prove the elements of both illegal sale and illegal possession. De Castro was accordingly acquitted on reasonable doubt.

Practical Takeaways

• Section 21 is not optional. The inventory and photographing of seized drugs must be done immediately at the place of seizure, with the required witnesses physically present.
• Plan ahead. Since buy-bust operations are planned, the police must bring the necessary documents and arrange for the presence of the media, DOJ, and elected official representatives beforehand.
• Excuses must be real. Non-compliance will not automatically void a seizure, but the prosecution must prove a justifiable ground and that the evidence remained intact.
• Prosecutors must be vigilant. They must prove compliance with Section 21 or explain any deviation. Courts may review the records even if the accused does not raise the issue.
• For the accused, procedure matters. A conviction may be overturned if the chain of custody is broken, even when the police claim regularity in their duties.

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