The Importance of Strict Adherence to Chain of Custody in Drug Cases

Michael Tañamor y Acibo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 228132, March 11, 2020

In the bustling streets of Dumaguete City, a buy-bust operation aimed at curbing the illegal drug trade led to the arrest of Michael Tañamor. What seemed like a routine operation turned into a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court, highlighting the critical importance of the chain of custody in drug cases. This case underscores how procedural lapses can lead to the acquittal of suspects, affecting the fight against drug trafficking and the rights of the accused.

Michael Tañamor was accused of selling methamphetamine, commonly known as ‘shabu,’ in a buy-bust operation conducted by the police. The central legal question was whether the police followed the proper procedures in handling the seized drugs, particularly the chain of custody, which is crucial for proving the integrity of the evidence in court.

Understanding the Legal Context

The Philippine legal system places a high emphasis on the chain of custody in drug cases to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The chain of custody refers to the documented and unbroken transfer of physical evidence from the time of seizure until it is presented in court. This is governed by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by RA 10640.

Section 21 mandates that immediately after seizure, the drugs must be inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the media or the Department of Justice (DOJ). This process is designed to prevent tampering, planting, or loss of the seized drugs, ensuring that the evidence presented in court is the same as what was confiscated during the operation.

For instance, if a police officer seizes a sachet of shabu during a buy-bust, they must document every step of handling the sachet, from the moment of seizure to the time it reaches the forensic laboratory. This meticulous documentation is crucial to maintain the credibility of the evidence.

The exact text of Section 21 of RA 9165 states: “The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”

The Case of Michael Tañamor

Michael Tañamor’s story began on February 25, 2014, when he was apprehended in a buy-bust operation in Dumaguete City. The police alleged that Tañamor, along with an accomplice who escaped, sold three sachets of shabu to an undercover officer. However, Tañamor claimed he was forcibly taken from an eatery and framed for the crime.

The case proceeded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, which convicted Tañamor based on the testimony of the police officers and the evidence presented. Tañamor appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the police failed to adhere to the chain of custody requirements. The CA upheld the conviction, but Tañamor took his case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the police’s failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165. The Court noted that the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs were not conducted immediately after seizure at the site of the operation but were done at the police station, without the presence of the required witnesses during the seizure.

Justice Caguioa, writing for the Court, emphasized the importance of the chain of custody: “The phrase ‘immediately after seizure and confiscation’ means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs must be at the place of apprehension and/or seizure. If this is not practicable, it may be done as soon as the apprehending team reaches the nearest police station or nearest office.”

The Court also highlighted the necessity of the insulating witnesses: “The presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory and serves a crucial purpose. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug.”

Due to these procedural lapses, the Supreme Court acquitted Tañamor, stating that the prosecution failed to justify the non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements, thus casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence.

Practical Implications and Key Lessons

This ruling has significant implications for future drug cases in the Philippines. It reinforces the need for law enforcement agencies to strictly adhere to the chain of custody requirements under RA 9165. Failure to do so can result in the acquittal of suspects, even when other evidence might suggest guilt.

For businesses and individuals involved in the legal system, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of proper documentation and adherence to legal procedures. It is crucial for law enforcement to ensure that all required witnesses are present during the seizure and inventory of drugs to avoid any potential legal challenges.

Key Lessons:

• Ensure strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 during drug seizures.
• Document every step of the chain of custody meticulously to maintain the integrity of the evidence.
• Secure the presence of the required witnesses at the time of seizure to prevent allegations of planting or tampering.
• Be prepared to justify any deviations from the standard procedures in court.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the chain of custody in drug cases?

The chain of custody is the documented and unbroken transfer of physical evidence from the time of seizure until it is presented in court, ensuring the integrity of the evidence.

Why is the presence of witnesses important during a drug seizure?

Witnesses, including an elected public official and representatives from the media or DOJ, are required to prevent tampering, planting, or loss of the seized drugs and to ensure the credibility of the evidence.

Can a case be dismissed if the chain of custody is not followed?

Yes, if the chain of custody is not followed, and the prosecution cannot justify the non-compliance, the case may be dismissed due to doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

What should law enforcement do if it is not practicable to conduct the inventory at the site of seizure?

If it is not practicable to conduct the inventory at the site of seizure, it should be done at the nearest police station or office, with a valid justification provided in the records.

How can individuals protect their rights during a buy-bust operation?

Individuals should ensure that the police follow the proper procedures, including the presence of required witnesses and the immediate inventory and photographing of seized items.

ASG Law specializes in criminal law and drug-related cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.