In People of the Philippines v. Restbei B. Tampus, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This ruling emphasizes the importance of strictly adhering to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of the evidence. The acquittal serves as a reminder that even in drug-related offenses, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which includes proper handling and documentation of seized items.

Buy-Bust Gone Bust: How a Shabu Sale Case Unraveled Due to Chain of Custody Lapses

The case began with an alleged buy-bust operation conducted by the Cebu City Police Office against Restbei Tampus, also known as “Ebing,” for reportedly selling methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. According to the prosecution, PO1 Adriano Bacatan acted as the poseur-buyer, purchasing a large pack of shabu from Tampus for P3,000,000. Following the arrest, the seized drugs were marked, inventoried, and sent to the Crime Laboratory for examination, which confirmed the substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride. Tampus, however, claimed she was merely asked to carry a trolley bag at the pier and was later apprehended in a hotel room with the drugs found inside the bag, which she denied owning.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City convicted Tampus, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Both courts gave weight to the testimony of the police officers, presuming they acted regularly in the performance of their duties. However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, focusing on the critical lapses in the chain of custody. Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, lays down specific procedures for handling seized drugs to maintain their integrity as evidence.

The law requires that after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of (1) the accused or their representative or counsel, (2) an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. These witnesses are required to sign the inventory and receive a copy thereof. This process ensures transparency and minimizes the risk of tampering or substitution of evidence. The Supreme Court highlighted the explicit wording of Section 21 of RA 9165, stating:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance [with] these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

In Tampus’s case, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the inventory and photography of the seized drugs were conducted in the presence of all the required witnesses. Although media representatives were present during the operation, none of them signed the inventory receipt, raising doubts about their actual participation in the inventory process. As emphasized in People v. Sipin, there are justifiable reasons for the absence of any of the three witnesses. However, the prosecution did not offer any explanation for the absence of the required signatures or any proof of genuine efforts to secure them.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court reiterated its mandatory policy for proving the chain of custody, as outlined in People v. Lim, which requires apprehending officers to state their compliance with Section 21(1) of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations in their sworn statements or affidavits. If there is non-observance, the officers must justify the reason for the non-compliance and detail the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Failure to provide justification should prompt the investigating fiscal to refer the case for further preliminary investigation to determine the presence or absence of probable cause.

The Court also noted several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. For example, PO1 Bacatan claimed to have been wearing a specific attire during the transaction, which differed from what he wore in the photographs taken during the inventory. The Supreme Court, quoting the Public Attorney’s Office’s brief, highlighted the improbability of the scenario presented by PO1 Bacatan, especially concerning the large sum of money involved in the alleged drug transaction. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had not provided a credible account of how the buy-bust operation was conducted and the safeguards that should have been in place to protect the integrity of the seized evidence.

This approach contrasts with the lower courts’ reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers. The Supreme Court made it clear that this presumption cannot substitute for the actual fulfillment of the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165. In the absence of strict compliance and credible explanations for any deviations, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are compromised, creating reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

The Court criticized the police officers’ handling of the situation, especially their interaction with the media. The fact that the media was allowed to conduct incriminating interviews with the accused raised concerns about potential prejudice and violation of her rights. The Supreme Court underscored that the primary objective of the law is to ensure the integrity of the seized drugs and protect the rights of the accused, not to sensationalize the case through media exposure. Therefore, because of the serious lapses in complying with the chain of custody rule, the Supreme Court acquitted Restbei B. Tampus, reinforcing the importance of due process and the presumption of innocence in drug cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, in handling the seized drugs. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the required witnesses were present during the inventory and photography of the drugs, and no justification was offered for this non-compliance.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the process of documenting and tracking the handling of evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, to ensure its integrity and prevent tampering or substitution. It requires that each person who comes into contact with the evidence must properly record the transfer and handling of the items.
Who are the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165?	Under Section 21 of RA 9165, the required witnesses are (1) the accused or their representative or counsel, (2) an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. These witnesses must be present during the physical inventory and photography of the seized items.
What happens if the chain of custody is not properly followed?	If the chain of custody is not properly followed, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are compromised. This can lead to the exclusion of the evidence and the acquittal of the accused, as it creates reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
What is the presumption of regularity?	The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes government officials, including law enforcement officers, perform their duties in accordance with the law. However, this presumption cannot substitute for the actual fulfillment of legal requirements, such as the chain of custody rule.
What are some justifiable reasons for non-compliance with Section 21?	Justifiable reasons for non-compliance with Section 21 may include situations where the place of arrest is a remote area, the safety of the witnesses is threatened, or earnest efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses prove futile. The prosecution must provide credible evidence to support these reasons.
Why is the presence of media representatives important?	The presence of media representatives is intended to ensure transparency and prevent abuse in the handling of seized drugs. Their role is to observe and report on the inventory process, providing an additional layer of accountability.
What is the effect of Republic Act No. 10640 on Section 21 of RA 9165?	Republic Act No. 10640 amended Section 21 of RA 9165 to clarify the requirements for the chain of custody rule. The amendment specified the persons who must be present during the inventory and photography of the seized drugs, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability.
Can a conviction be upheld if the media representative did not sign the inventory?	According to the Supreme Court, the media representative should sign the inventory. This means that the act of signature is important to indicate their participation in the inventory process.

The Tampus case underscores the critical importance of adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in RA 9165, as amended. By emphasizing the need for strict compliance with the chain of custody rule and the presence of required witnesses, the Supreme Court protects the constitutional rights of the accused and ensures that convictions are based on reliable and credible evidence. This decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to prioritize due process and transparency in drug-related operations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Tampus, G.R. No. 221434, February 06, 2019