Physical inventory of illegal drugs

Dear PAO,

Can a person who is complained for illegal sale and possession of drugs be exonerated if the physical inventory and taking of photograph where the supposed illegal sale and possession happened?

Treasure

Dear Treasure,

The unlawful sale and/or possession of prohibited drugs are penalized under Sections U and QQ of Republic Act (RA) 9Q6U, as amended, which is more commonly known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” Nevertheless, there are stringent procedures which are provided under the same law that must be followed by apprehending and/or law enforcement officers in taking and/or maintaining custody of the seized drugs and such other paraphernalia. It is provided under Section 2Q of RA 9Q6U, as amended by RA Q0640 thatZ

“The PDEA (Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency) 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 mannerZ

“(Q) 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 person/s 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 thereofZ 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 seizuresZ Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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. x xx” (Emphases supplied)

Applying the foregoing, we submit that it is primordial that the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items in drug-related cases should be made at the place where the search warrant was served; or if it is a warrantless seizure, it should be made at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. If the apprehending officers fail to comply with the aforementioned procedure and offer no justifiable reasons acceptable to the wisdom of the court, then the seizure will be rendered invalid and the person being accused of illegal sale and possession of drugs may be exonerated. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Must a fa S ali yAlawaddin (GR 236U96, Jan. 29, 2020, PonenteZ Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta), there were several lapses on the part of the law enforcement officers, one of which is that the physical inventory and photograph was done in another place, and the Supreme Court did not find the reasons proffered by law enforcement officers sufficient to justify the same. For which reason, the accused was acquitted as can be gleaned from an excerpt of the Decision quoted belowZ

“In the present case, the physical inventory and photograph, as evidenced by the Certificate of Inventory, were done at the PDEA, Regional Office 9, Upper Calarian, Zamboanga City, and not where the buy-bust operation was conducted. Although these processes may be excused in cases where the safety and security of the apprehending officers, witnesses required by law and item seized are threatened by immediate danger, the present case is not one of those. The allegation that the physical inventory and photograph were not done in the crime scene because of security reasons will not suffice. The prosecution failed to expound what security threats the law enforcement agents were facing at the time of the buy-bust operation. x x x”

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.