G.R. No. 253812 , June 28, 2021
Noila Saban y Bansil @ “Nawila” a.k.a. “Nawila Saban y Carabao,” Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

This case stemmed from an Information charging petitioner Noila Saban with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on December 17, 2014, while Saban was visiting her incarcerated husband at the Manila City Jail, Jail Officer 1 Linda C. Lominio, during a routine search, noticed Saban chewing something with a slight bulge in her cheeks. After being asked to spit it out, Saban eventually complied and produced a folded brown packaging tape containing two plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. The searchers marked the sachets, prepared an inventory, and photographed them. The items were turned over to an investigator, then brought to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for examination, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Saban denied the charge, claiming nothing was recovered from her during the search and that she was later told drugs were found. The Regional Trial Court found her guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs with moral certainty, given the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended.

RULING

The petition is GRANTED. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED petitioner Noila Saban.
The Court ruled that in illegal possession cases, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty as it forms part of the corpus delicti. This requires an unbroken chain of custody, including the marking, inventory, and photography of seized items immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused or her representative, and the required witnesses. Since the seizure occurred on December 17, 2014, after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, the law required the presence of an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media during the inventory and photography.
The records showed complete and unjustified non-compliance with this witness requirement. While the apprehending officers attempted to secure a barangay official (an elected public official), none responded. Crucially, they admitted that no attempt at all was made to secure a representative from the NPS or the media. The prosecution failed to account for this absence by presenting a justifiable reason or demonstrating genuine and sufficient efforts to secure their presence. Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised, warranting acquittal.