Key Takeaway: Ensuring Integrity in Drug Seizure and Chain of Custody Procedures

People of the Philippines v. Tamil Selvi Veloo and N. Chandrar Nadarajan, G.R. No. 252154, March 04, 2021

Imagine arriving at an international airport, your luggage checked, and suddenly finding yourself entangled in a legal nightmare due to drugs found in your bag. This scenario is not just a plot for a thriller movie but a reality for Tamil Selvi Veloo and N. Chandrar Nadarajan, whose case before the Philippine Supreme Court sheds light on the critical importance of adhering to drug seizure and chain of custody procedures. Their ordeal underscores a pivotal legal question: How strictly must law enforcement adhere to these procedures to ensure a fair trial?

The case revolves around the arrest of Veloo and Nadarajan at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, where they were found with significant amounts of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The central issue was whether the absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative during the inventory of seized drugs invalidated the evidence against them.

Legal Context: Understanding Chain of Custody and Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165

The chain of custody is a crucial legal concept in drug-related cases, ensuring that the evidence presented in court is the same as what was seized from the accused. In the Philippines, this is governed by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The law mandates that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, an elected public official, and a DOJ representative.

Section 21 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.”

However, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 include a saving clause that allows for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. This clause is essential in understanding the flexibility and rigidity of the law’s application.

Consider a scenario where a police officer seizes drugs during a routine check but fails to secure a DOJ representative due to immediate security concerns. The officer’s adherence to other aspects of the chain of custody, like immediate inventory and photographing in the presence of other required witnesses, could still uphold the evidence’s integrity.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Veloo and Nadarajan

Veloo and Nadarajan, both Malaysian nationals, arrived at NAIA from Hong Kong. Veloo was apprehended after a customs officer, suspicious of her claim of being on a honeymoon, inspected her luggage and discovered drugs hidden in a false bottom. Nadarajan was implicated after Veloo pointed him out as her “husband,” despite his denial of any relationship.

The procedural journey began at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, which found both guilty of violating Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellants argued that the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory invalidated the evidence due to non-compliance with Section 21.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the integrity of the evidence. The Court noted that while the DOJ representative was absent, the presence of other witnesses, including a media representative and an elected public official, alongside customs officers, was deemed sufficient under the circumstances. The Court emphasized that the saving clause could be applied due to the justifiable grounds of the airport environment and the presence of other state agents.

Direct quotes from the Court’s reasoning include:

“While the prosecution had duly proven that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized from the Dibola bag had been preserved, the records are bereft of any testimony showing that the customs officials attempted to secure the presence of a DOJ representative, nor of any justifiable reason for their failure to do so.”

“The presence of its officers, who are likewise State agents comparable to members of the DOJ, during the seizure of the drugs involved in this case can be deemed sufficient to take the place of the DOJ representative.”

The Court ultimately affirmed the conviction for the drugs found in Veloo’s bag but acquitted them for the drugs in Nadarajan’s bag due to doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

Practical Implications: Lessons for Future Cases

This ruling reinforces the importance of the chain of custody in drug-related cases and highlights the flexibility allowed under the saving clause of R.A. No. 9165. For law enforcement, it underscores the need to document efforts to comply with Section 21 and provide justifiable reasons for any deviations.

For individuals and businesses, understanding these procedures can be crucial in navigating legal challenges. If you find yourself or your business involved in a similar situation, ensuring that the chain of custody is meticulously followed can be a critical defense.

Key Lessons:

• Adherence to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is mandatory, but the saving clause allows for flexibility under justifiable grounds.
• The presence of other witnesses can substitute for a missing DOJ representative if their absence is justified and the evidence’s integrity is preserved.
• Detailed documentation of compliance efforts is essential for the admissibility of evidence in court.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the chain of custody in drug cases?

The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence. In drug cases, it ensures that the drugs presented in court are the same as those seized from the accused.

Why is Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 important?

Section 21 outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process. It is crucial for maintaining the integrity of evidence and preventing tampering or substitution.

What happens if law enforcement does not follow Section 21?

Non-compliance can lead to the exclusion of evidence, potentially resulting in acquittal. However, the saving clause allows for exceptions if there are justifiable grounds and the evidence’s integrity is preserved.

Can other witnesses replace a DOJ representative?

Yes, under certain circumstances, other witnesses such as media representatives or elected officials can substitute for a DOJ representative if their absence is justified and the evidence’s integrity is maintained.

What should I do if I am involved in a drug seizure case?

Seek legal counsel immediately. Ensure that your lawyer understands the chain of custody requirements and can challenge any non-compliance that may have occurred.

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