Who May Sign the Inventory (Section 21, R.A. No. 9165, as amended)

1. Why the inventory signature is a “make-or-break” issue

In Philippine drug prosecutions, the identity of the seized substance is the center of gravity of the case. Courts regularly stress that dangerous drugs are easily susceptible to planting, substitution, contamination, or post-seizure manipulation, so the State must establish—through a chain of custody—that the item presented in court is the very same item confiscated from the accused.

The inventory and photographing requirement (and, crucially, the requirement that specified persons witness and sign the inventory) is the statute’s built-in safeguard at the earliest, most vulnerable stage: right after seizure. When courts see missing or improper signatures without a legally acceptable explanation, they often find a break in the chain of custody and acquit for reasonable doubt.

2. The legal backbone: Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165

Section 21 (as interpreted in extensive jurisprudence) governs post-seizure handling of drugs and paraphernalia. While procedures may be reflected in manuals and forms, the controlling legal requirements come from:

R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
R.A. No. 10640 (2014 amendment), which adjusted the witness requirements and aligned the law with operational realities
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), as amended, which detail place-of-inventory rules and documentation practices

The central statutory idea: the apprehending team must immediately account for the seized items through marking, inventory, and photography, in the presence of specified witnesses, who must sign and receive copies of the inventory.

3. The chain of custody (big picture) and where “inventory signing” fits

Philippine decisions commonly analyze chain of custody as a sequence of “links” that must be shown through credible testimony and documents:

Seizure and marking by the apprehending officer (often at the scene)
Turnover of the marked item to an investigating officer or evidence custodian
Turnover to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination
Submission and presentation in court, with identification of the same item

The inventory and photographing step is usually treated as part of the first link (seizure/initial custody), and it is where the law demands independent witnesses and signatures to deter and detect tampering.

4. The inventory: what it is and what it must do

The inventory may be titled differently depending on the agency (e.g., “Certificate of Inventory,” “Receipt of Property Seized,” “Inventory of Seized Items”), but substantively it should:

Describe the items seized (type, quantity/weight, packaging, identifying marks)
Reflect the markings placed on each item
Be accompanied by photographs of the items and the required persons present
Be signed by the required persons
Indicate place, date, and time, and ideally the case reference (operation details)
Note any irregular events (refusal to sign, threats, emergencies, etc.)

The signature requirement is not about aesthetics; it is a statutory method of authentication by specific categories of persons who are meant to be independent of the arresting team.

5. Who may sign the inventory (and who must)

A. Required signatories under current law (post–R.A. No. 10640 framework)

For seizures occurring under the framework reflected in Section 21 as amended, the inventory is intended to be witnessed by, and signed by:

The accused or the person from whom the items were seized OR the accused’s representative OR the accused’s counsel (including PAO or private counsel)
An elected public official
A representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) OR a media representative (i.e., one of these two categories, not necessarily both)

These persons are the ones contemplated by law to sign the inventory copies and to be provided their respective copies (with the accused receiving a copy as expressly emphasized in practice and decisions).

B. Earlier regime (pre–R.A. No. 10640): stricter witness set

Before the 2014 amendment, the law and the way courts applied it generally demanded a fuller set of witnesses—commonly described in decisions as:

The accused/person from whom seized (or representative/counsel)
An elected public official
A DOJ representative
A media representative

This older framework generated many acquittals when any of these were missing and the prosecution could not convincingly justify the deviation. When litigating older seizures, courts typically evaluate compliance against the requirements understood to be applicable at the time of confiscation.

6. Deep dive: each category of inventory signatory

6.1 The accused / person from whom seized / representative / counsel

Who qualifies

Accused/person from whom seized: The arrestee or the person whose possession/control is alleged.
Representative: Not rigidly defined by statute; commonly a relative, companion, or another person acting for the accused at the scene. The key is that the representative is genuinely acting for the accused, not for the police.
Counsel: Private lawyer or PAO lawyer acting as counsel.

What their signature signifies

It documents that the inventory was done with the accused-side present, reducing the risk of after-the-fact fabrication.

If the accused refuses to sign

Refusal does not automatically invalidate the inventory if:

The prosecution can credibly show the accused was present and was asked to sign; and
The refusal is recorded in the inventory (e.g., “refused to sign”) and corroborated by other required witnesses.

Courts generally focus on whether the refusal is believable and contemporaneously noted, rather than treating signature as an absolute mechanical requirement in all circumstances.

If the accused is not present at the inventory

This is a recurring problem. If the inventory was done away from the accused without a legitimate reason—especially if the inventory happened later at the station—courts often treat it as a serious deviation. If the police invoke practicality or security, the prosecution must still show:

Why the accused (or representative/counsel) could not be present, and
That the integrity and evidentiary value were preserved despite the deviation.

6.2 The elected public official

Who qualifies as “elected”

An elected public official is one who holds office by virtue of election, commonly including:

Barangay Chairman/Punong Barangay
Barangay Kagawad
Municipal/City Councilor
Mayor, Vice Mayor
Governor, etc.
SK officials are elected, but whether a particular SK officer was accepted as the required elected official has been scrutinized factually in some cases (courts look at actual status and presence).

Who does not qualify (common pitfalls)

Courts have repeatedly treated these as not substitutes for “elected public official”:

Barangay tanod (typically appointed/auxiliary, not elected)
Barangay watchmen or “barangay peace officers” without elected status
Barangay secretary/treasurer (often appointed)
“Purok leader” or community volunteer
Any government employee who is not an elected official (unless also elected)

Why the elected official’s signature is important

This is meant to supply an independent community witness to the inventory process—someone not under police control, to deter planting or switching.

6.3 Representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or media representative

(a) NPS representative: who counts

The “National Prosecution Service” is the prosecutorial arm under DOJ (prosecutors assigned in city/provincial prosecutor’s offices). Typical NPS representatives include:

City/Provincial Prosecutor
Assistant City/Provincial Prosecutor
Inquest prosecutor
Any prosecutor/person formally acting in that capacity for the prosecutor’s office

Courts are sensitive to whether the witness is truly from the prosecution service and not simply “someone from a government office.”

Common non-qualifying substitutes

Police officers (even investigators)
Barangay officials (they are a separate category)
Court employees
Random DOJ employees not acting as NPS representatives
Private persons presented as “prosecution representative” without authority

(b) Media representative: who counts

A media representative should be a bona fide media practitioner—someone from a legitimate media outlet acting independently. In disputes, courts often look for:

Identification and affiliation (ID, station/newspaper, role)
Credible explanation of how they were contacted and why they were present
Consistency between testimony, inventory, and photos

The “independence” concern

Courts have expressed distrust when the supposed media witness appears to be a regular police “fixture” or lacks credible independence. The aim is not merely presence, but independent witnessing.

“NPS or media”—not both (under the relaxed regime)

Under the post-amendment framework, one of these (NPS or media) is generally contemplated as sufficient together with the elected official and the accused/representative/counsel. But if neither is present, it becomes a major defect unless the prosecution can bring the case within the saving clause.

7. Who else may sign—and why their signatures usually don’t cure defects

Many inventories include additional signatures, such as:

Seizing officer / arresting officer
Team leader
Investigator-on-case
Evidence custodian
Forensic chemist (occasionally, on turnover documents rather than the inventory)
Other police witnesses

These signatures can be helpful for internal accountability, but they are not substitutes for the statutory insulating witnesses. Courts repeatedly treat “police-only” witnessing as precisely what Section 21 was designed to avoid.

Key point: Even a perfectly filled-out inventory signed by multiple officers may still fail Section 21 if the required civilian/independent witnesses did not witness and sign—unless the saving clause is properly invoked and proven.

8. Place and timing: where the inventory should be done (and why it matters to signing)

As a rule, the inventory and photographing should be done immediately after seizure and at the appropriate location:

Ideally at the place of seizure (especially for warrantless seizures/buy-bust)
For searches under a warrant, generally where the warrant is served
If not practicable, at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending team, depending on what is legally recognized as practicable in the circumstances

This is not mere geography. Courts evaluate location/time because moving the items without completing inventory and photographs increases the risk of tampering—and makes witness attendance and signatures easier to manipulate after the fact.

9. Missing signatures or missing witnesses: when the “saving clause” can apply

Section 21 contains (and jurisprudence strongly applies) a principle often described as substantial compliance or a saving clause:

Noncompliance with some requirements may be excused only if:

The prosecution recognizes and explains the deviation with justifiable grounds, and
It proves that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved from seizure to presentation in court.

9.1 What courts look for as “justifiable grounds”

Courts do not accept generic excuses. Typical reasons that may be considered (depending on proof) include:

Immediate threats to safety (hostile crowd, risk of ambush, violence)
Lack of available witnesses despite earnest efforts (remote area, late hours)
Urgent operational constraints (but this is closely scrutinized)
Practical impossibility that is specifically described, not conclusory

9.2 “Earnest efforts” requirement

Philippine decisions increasingly demand proof of efforts to secure the required witnesses, such as:

Attempts to contact barangay officials, prosecutors, or media before or during the operation
Calling multiple officials, documenting refusals or unavailability
Explaining why the team proceeded without them and what safeguards were used instead

9.3 What is not usually enough

“They were not available” (without details)
“It was late” (without showing attempts and impossibility)
“We were in a hurry” (without safety or impossibility basis)
“The accused didn’t want witnesses” (courts require credible proof)

The burden is on the prosecution; courts do not presume the deviation was justified.

10. Frequent signature-related defects seen in litigation

10.1 Wrong person signs as “elected official”

Examples: barangay tanod signs; barangay secretary signs; “community leader” signs. Courts typically reject these as substitutes because the law specifies elected public official.

10.2 Witness signs but did not actually witness

Sometimes a signature is obtained later at the station or office without actual presence at the inventory. Courts treat this as a serious defect because the whole point is contemporaneous witnessing.

10.3 Only the accused signs (or only police sign)

If the inventory lacks the required insulating witnesses, courts generally require a strong saving-clause showing. Without it, the defect often leads to acquittal.

10.4 Accused’s signature missing with no credible explanation

If the prosecution cannot show refusal, absence with justification, or presence of representative/counsel, the missing signature strengthens the reasonable-doubt argument.

10.5 Photos do not show required persons

Photographs are meant to corroborate that inventory happened with the required witnesses present. If photos show only drugs or only police, courts may view the documentation as hollow.

11. Practical guidance: what a legally resilient inventory signing should look like

11.1 For law enforcement/prosecution (compliance checklist)

A strong Section 21 compliance record typically includes:

Immediate marking of each item with unique identifiers
Inventory and photographing done promptly at the correct location
Presence of:
- accused/person from whom seized or representative/counsel
- an elected public official
- an NPS representative or a media representative
Inventory signed by all required persons
Copies provided to the accused (and, in practice, to the witnesses)
Photographs showing:
- seized items
- markings
- required persons present and identifiable
Written documentation of any deviation and the reasons for it
Clean turnover documents showing each handoff from seizure to court

11.2 For defense (cross-examination checklist)

Signature issues often become decisive when the defense presses:

Who exactly signed as the elected official—what office, elected status, and how verified?
Who exactly signed as NPS/media—what credentials, how contacted, why present?
Was the accused present and asked to sign—what happened? Is refusal noted?
Where was the inventory done—why not at the place of seizure?
What time was inventory done relative to seizure—what explains gaps?
Do the photos show all required persons?
Are there inconsistencies between inventory, testimonies, and laboratory requests/results?
Who had custody at each moment—can each link identify the same marked item?

12. Quick reference: “Who may sign the inventory?”

Required (core) signatories contemplated by Section 21 safeguards:

Accused / person from whom seized or representative or counsel
One elected public official
One NPS representative or one media representative (under the amended framework)

May sign but does not replace the required witnesses:

Seizing officer, investigator, team leader, evidence custodian, other police officers
Other bystanders or officials without the required statutory status

Usually not acceptable as substitutes for the elected official requirement:

Barangay tanod, barangay secretary/treasurer (when appointed), community volunteers, non-elected personnel

13. Bottom line

In Philippine drug cases, the inventory is not just a record of seized items; it is a statutory credibility mechanism. The law identifies who must witness and sign because the signatures are meant to be a real-time, independent check against tampering. When the inventory is signed by the proper persons—present at the proper time and place—and the prosecution can account for each custodial transfer afterward, the chain-of-custody foundation is strong. When signatures are missing, substituted, or obtained without actual witnessing, the prosecution must carry the heavy burden of proving justified deviation and preserved integrity; otherwise, reasonable doubt often follows.