The Supreme Court has recently made a significant ruling by granting the petition of two drug convicts due to a breach in the chain of custody in drug cases. The Court emphasized the importance of immediately conducting the seizure, marking, physical inventory, and photograph-taking of seized illegal drugs at the place of arrest.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the Court’s Special First Division granted the motion for reconsideration filed by Allan Almayda and Homero Quiogue. They challenged a resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) that affirmed their conviction for violating Republic Act (RA) 9165, also known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.”
Almayda and Quiogue were charged in 2012 following a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). During the operation, PDEA agents marked the seized plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, at the crime scene. Subsequently, the team returned to the PDEA office to conduct the inventory and photograph-taking in the presence of the convicts, a village official, a media representative, and a Department of Justice representative.
The regional trial court subsequently convicted Almayda and Quiogue. However, in a resolution dated November 11, 2021, the Supreme Court affirmed their conviction, prompting the convicts to file a motion for reconsideration.
In granting their motion, the Supreme Court reiterated its 2022 ruling that in cases of warrantless seizures, the inventory and taking of photographs, which is the first link in the chain of custody in drug cases, must generally be done at the place of seizure. However, there is an exception to this rule. If it is not practicable to conduct the inventory and photograph-taking at the place of seizure, or if the seized items are threatened by immediate or extreme danger, the physical inventory and photograph-taking may be conducted at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer or team. The Court emphasized that police officers must provide a sensible reason, which is practicable, consistent, and not merely generic or an afterthought, to justify conducting the inventory at a different location. These reasons must be indicated in the affidavits of the police officers who participated in the buy-bust operation.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that even if the subsequent links in the chain of custody comply with the requirements under the law, this does not cure the breach that occurred at the initial link. In other words, if there is a breach in the chain of custody at the beginning, it cannot be rectified by subsequent compliant actions.
This ruling by the Supreme Court highlights the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody in drug cases. The chain of custody ensures the integrity and reliability of the seized drugs as evidence in court. By emphasizing the need for immediate seizure, marking, inventory, and photograph-taking at the place of arrest, the Court aims to prevent any tampering or contamination of the evidence.
This decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies and the judiciary to strictly follow the prescribed procedures in handling drug-related cases. It also provides clarity on the exceptions to the general rule, allowing for practical considerations in conducting the inventory and photograph-taking of seized items.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling granting the petition of two drug convicts over a breach in the chain of custody in drug cases reaffirms the importance of strict adherence to procedures. By emphasizing the need for immediate action at the place of seizure and clarifying the exceptions to this rule, the Court aims to uphold the integrity and reliability of evidence in drug-related cases.
Source: The Manila Times
