People v Santos, GR NO 243627; November 27, 2019; Perlas-Bernabe, J

FACTS:

Accused appellant Xandra Santos was charged of illegal sale and illegal possession of Dangerous Drugs. Prosecution alleged that the police received information which then promptem them to conduct buy-bust operation against Santos. They recovered plastic sachet of white crystalline substance and another one when they searched her. Officers immediately brought accused-appellant back to the police station where they marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized items in her presence as well as that of Kagawad. These sachets were given to PNP Laboratory which tested positive on shabu. Accused claimed that while she was with her family, she was forcibly brought to the station and falsely made it appear that she had sold shabu. RTC found her guilty. She appealed to the CA that the chain of custody was not proved nor was the inventory had witnessed. CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

NO.

In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal.

To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In this regard, case law recognizes that "[m]arking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." Hence, the failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody.

The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the NPS OR the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence."

As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law. This is because "[t]he law has been 'crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment.”

The strict compliance of the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. But such failure will not render seizure and custody as void and invalid provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for noncompliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved (Sec 21, Art II of RA 9165). This is because the Court cannot presume what the grounds are or that they even exist.

Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule.

Notably the Court in People v. Lim , explained that the absence of the required witnesses must be justified based on acceptable reasons such as: "(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ [and] media representative[s] and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape."

The Court in People v Miranda reminded the prosecution that since the law clearly lays out the procedure, the State has the positive duty to account the chain of custody regardless if the defense raises it or not. Otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further review.

In this case, the police did not mark, inventory, and photographed the seized items in the place of arrest but in the police station justified that the place was crowded. However, they were not able to meet the witness requirements as the inventory and photography was not witnessed. The police said that they called representatives from DOJ and media but they were not available. This is not reasonable as mere claims of unavailability, absent a showing that actual and serious attempts were employed to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as they fail to show that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by police officers. Accused is acquitted.