First, in the sworn statements/affidavits, the arresting officers must state their

compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 (Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR);

Section 21 refers to the so-called “chain of custody” which requires the arresting
team having initial custody and control of the drugs to immediately undertake a
physical inventory of the confiscated drugs, and to take photographs while 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. The law also requires 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.

Within 24 hours upon confiscation of dangerous drugs, these must be submitted to

the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Forensic Laboratory for a
qualitative and quantitative examination. The forensic laboratory examiner must
then make a certification of the forensic laboratory examination results. The said
certification must be issued within 24 hours after the receipt of the subject items.

The law requires strict implementation of the process. Otherwise, the case will be
dismissed if there were no other evidence to warrant a conviction.

Second, in case of non-observance of the provision on the chain of custody, the

arresting officers must state the justification or explanation as well as the steps
they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items.

Third, if there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn

statements/affidavits, the investigating prosecutor must not immediately file the
case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further
preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable
cause.

Fourth, if the investigating prosecutors filed the case despite non-compliance with
the chain of custody and absence of explanation why, the court may exercise its
discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or
dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with the Rules of
Court.
Accused Romy Miranda Lim is acquitted on reasonable doubt, and is ordered
immediately released from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another
cause.

According to the SC, the arresting team failed to follow the chain of custody in
securing the evidence confiscated from the suspect.

Lim and his stepson were arrested in a buy-bust operation on October 19, 2010
conducted by PDEA. Authorities seized from the suspect the P500-drug money, one
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu which was being sold to the
undercover agent plus another sachet containing suspected drugs in Lim’s pocket.

But the SC said the arresting officers mishandled the evidence against Lim, creating
a reasonable doubt.

One of the arresting officers admitted that he took the seized evidence to the PDEA
office where it was marked accordingly. The officer said they could not conduct the
inventory at the house of Lim because it was risky.

The high court, however, questioned how the inventory could be risky onsite when
there were 10 arresting officers, and only Lim and his stepson, in the house.

The SC said Lim should be acquitted, stressing that the absence of an elected public
official, as well as representatives of the DOJ and the media to witness the physical
inventory and photograph of the seized items was evident.

“In fact, their signatures do not appear in the Inventory Receipt,” the high court
noted.

The SC also said the prosecution failed to explain why they did not secure the
presence of a DOJ representative, while testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
failed to establish the details of an earnest effort to coordinate with and secure
presence of the required witnesses.

“In other words, in a criminal case, the prosecution must offer sufficient evidence
from which the trier of fact could reasonably believe that an item still is what the
government claims it to be,” the high court pointed out.