Safeguarding Rights: The Supreme Court's Stance on Drug Evidence Integrity

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted an accused in a drug case, emphasizing that police officers must strictly comply with the mandatory procedures under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) when handling seized illegal drugs. The case of People v. Sood (G.R. No. 227394, June 6, 2018) serves as a crucial reminder that the integrity of evidence is paramount, and that the presumption of regularity in police work cannot override clear violations of the law.

The Facts of the Case

On January 28, 2009, police operatives in Quezon City conducted a buy-bust operation that led to the arrest of Norjana Sood y Amatondin. The police claimed that Sood handed two plastic sachets containing what was later confirmed to be 5.85 grams of shabu to an officer who posed as a buyer. Sood was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs).

The defense, however, presented a different story. Sood testified that she was a sidewalk vendor who was arrested by two men she thought were MMDA officers. She claimed that the police demanded ₱35,000 for her release and that she never sold drugs.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Sood's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the police officers' admitted non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, which prescribes the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Sood. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, and that the police officers' explanations for their deviations were hollow and unjustifiable.

The Mandatory Nature of Section 21

Section 21 requires the apprehending team to physically inventory and photograph seized drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused (or their representative or counsel), a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. All these witnesses must sign the inventory.

In this case, the Court found multiple violations:

1. Inventory not conducted at the place of seizure. The police officers gave conflicting testimonies—one said the inventory was done at the barangay hall, while another said it was done at the police station. The Court called this a "serious doubt" as to whether an inventory was even conducted.

2. Photographing done at the police station. The police claimed they had no camera at the time of arrest. The Court rejected this excuse, noting that the PNP Drug Enforcement Manual requires buy-bust teams to bring a camera, and that camera phones were already widely available in 2009.

3. Missing required witnesses. Only a barangay official and a media representative were present. No DOJ representative was present, and the police admitted there were no witnesses at the time of arrest.

The "Justifiable Grounds" Exception

The law provides an exception: non-compliance will not invalidate the seizure if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity of the evidence is preserved. However, the Court found the police's excuse—that they wanted to avoid traffic and commotion—to be hollow. Since buy-bust operations are planned activities, the team could have easily ensured minimal disruption.

The Chain of Custody

The Court also found serious gaps in the chain of custody. There was no testimony on how the drugs were kept after laboratory testing, and no testimony on how they were retrieved for presentation in court. These gaps created reasonable doubt about the identity and integrity of the seized items.

Practical Takeaways

• Strict compliance is required. Police officers must follow Section 21 of RA 9165 to the letter. The presumption of regularity in official duty does not apply to compliance with this section—the prosecution must affirmatively prove compliance.

• Witnesses are not optional. The presence of the required witnesses (media, DOJ, and elected official) during inventory and photographing is designed to prevent evidence planting and contamination. Their absence can be fatal to the prosecution's case.

• Excuses must be credible. "No camera" or "avoiding traffic" are not justifiable grounds for non-compliance. Buy-bust operations are planned, so the team should be prepared.

• Chain of custody must be complete. The prosecution must account for the drugs at every stage—from seizure to laboratory testing to court presentation. Any gap creates reasonable doubt.

• Note the 2014 amendment. RA 10640, which took effect in 2014, relaxed the witness requirement to two (an elected official and either a media or DOJ representative). However, for crimes committed before this amendment, the original, stricter rules apply.

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