SC: Inventory, taking photos of drugs must be done at place of seizure

Authorities must conduct inventory and take photos of illegal drugs at the place where they were seized, the Supreme Court stressed as it acquitted two individuals of drug charges.

"We reckon with the chain of custody in drugs cases, specifically, the first link, which refers to the seizure and marking which must be done immediately at the place of the arrest," the SC Special First Division said in an eight-page resolution.

"Too, it includes the physical inventory and photograph-taking of the seized drug, which should be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, together with an elected public official, a representative of the DOJ, and the media," it added.

The SC made the statement as it granted a motion for reconsideration filed by Allan Almayda and Homero Quiogue, which challenged an earlier resolution of the Supreme Court that affirmed their conviction for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2022.

Due to this, the SC acquitted Almayda and Quiogue and ordered their immediate release from detention, unless they were being held for another cause.

According to the court, Almayda and Quiogue were charged in 2012 following a buy-bust operation of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

During the operation, PDEA agents marked seized plastic sachets containing shabu at the crime scene. Then they returned to the PDEA office to conduct inventory and take photos of Almayda, Quiogue, and other witnesses.

In acquitting them, the SC cited a previous ruling that held that in the case of warrantless seizures, the inventory and taking of photographs must be concluded at the place of seizure.

For there to be exemptions, the high tribunal said police officers must justify that it is not practicable to conduct the same at the place of the seizure or the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger at the place of the seizure.

"The prosecution witnesses here failed to give any justification, much less, a sufficient one, why the inventory had to be conducted at the PDEA Regional Office instead of the place of arrest. Evidently, therefore, the first and most important link was already broken early on," it said.

The Court said that compliance with the requirements in the succeeding links does not also cure the breach in the first link.

"In view of the procedural infirmities in the chain of custody, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items cannot be said to have been preserved. These procedural infirmities cast serious doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti," the SC said.

"The metaphorical chain did not link at all, albeit it unjustly restrained appellant's right to liberty. If the chain of custody procedure had not been complied with, or no justified reason exists for its non-compliance, as in this case, it is the Court's duty to overturn the verdict of conviction," it added. — VDV, GMA Integrated News