Upholding Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: Delayed Inventory Does Not Acquit

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a buy-bust operation's chain of custody over seized drugs remains valid even if the marking, inventory, and photography were not done at the exact place of arrest. In People v. Tecson (G.R. No. 243786, October 9, 2019), the Court explained that conducting these procedures at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the law.

This ruling is significant for criminal defense and prosecution alike, as it clarifies the practical boundaries of the chain of custody rule under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Case

Jenny Tecson was arrested on September 9, 2014, after PDEA operatives conducted a buy-bust operation against her at the Telus Building in Cubao, Quezon City. Recovered from her was a plastic bag containing 172.9 grams of shabu. Because bystanders crowded the arrest site, the operatives brought Tecson to their office in Quezon City, where the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized item were conducted in her presence, along with a barangay kagawad and a media representative.

Tecson denied the charge, claiming she was forcibly taken by two men who demanded ₱1,000,000.00 for her release. The trial court convicted her of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Issue

On appeal, Tecson argued that the chain of custody rule was violated because marking, inventory, and photography were not done at the place of arrest, and no Department of Justice (DOJ) representative was present. She contended this warranted her acquittal.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that while the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, the law and jurisprudence recognize practical realities in the field.

Marking at the station is allowed. The Court cited settled doctrine that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. Thus, failure to mark at the exact place of arrest does not render the drugs inadmissible or impair their integrity.

The witness requirement was met. The Court noted that RA 10640, which took effect on August 7, 2014, amended RA 9165 to require only an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media as witnesses. Since the arrest occurred on September 9, 2014—after RA 10640's effectivity—the presence of a barangay kagawad and a media representative was sufficient. A DOJ representative was no longer required.

The chain remained unbroken. The Court traced the custody of the seized drugs from the PDEA office to the crime laboratory, then to the evidence custodian, and finally to the presentation in court. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were properly preserved.

Practical Takeaways

• Marking need not occur at the arrest site. When circumstances such as a crowd or safety concerns make it impracticable, the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is an acceptable venue.
• Know which version of the law applies. RA 10640, effective August 7, 2014, relaxed the witness requirement. Cases involving seizures before that date still require media and DOJ representatives.
• The key is unbroken custody. What matters most is that the prosecution can account for each link—from seizure to laboratory to court—to prove the drug's identity.
• Presence of the accused is required. The inventory and photography must still be done in the presence of the accused or their representative or counsel.
• Factual findings of trial courts are highly respected. Courts give great weight to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, which is difficult to overturn on appeal.

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