G.R. No. 190621; February 10, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GLENN SALVADOR y BALVERDE and DORY ANN PARCON y DEL ROSARIO, Accused, GLENN SALVADOR y BALVERDE, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Glenn Salvador was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), while his co-accused Dory Ann Parcon was charged with illegal possession. The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on September 3, 2003, in Quezon City. A police team was formed after a confidential informant reported Salvador’s drug activities. PO2 Sofjan Soriano acted as poseur-buyer and purchased a plastic sachet of shabu from Salvador for PHP 200.00. Upon consummation of the sale, Salvador was arrested, and the buy-bust money was recovered from him. Parcon, who arrived during the transaction and received a sachet from Salvador, was also arrested, and a similar sachet was seized from her.
The seized items were marked and later submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. The prosecution established the chain of custody through the testimonies of the arresting officer and the forensic chemist, the latter’s testimony being stipulated upon by the defense. The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused. On appeal, Salvador argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically the lack of a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items taken immediately after seizure.

ISSUE

Whether the non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 renders the accused-appellant’s arrest illegal and the seized items inadmissible.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved despite procedural lapses. The Court explained that while Section 21 of RA 9165 mandates the physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of specified witnesses, strict compliance is not always required. The rule is subject to the saving clause that non-compliance will not invalidate the seizure and custody if the prosecution proves justifiable grounds for the lapse and, more importantly, establishes the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
Here, the prosecution successfully demonstrated an unbroken chain of custody. The buy-bust operation was legitimate, the seized sachets were immediately marked at the police station by the arresting officer, and they were properly turned over to the investigator and then to the forensic chemist for examination. The stipulation regarding the forensic chemist’s testimony confirmed the items tested were the same ones seized. The Court ruled that the failure to conduct an inventory and take photographs was not fatal, as the prosecution provided a credible explanation that the police officers were not equipped with a camera at that time. The overriding consideration is the preservation of the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, which was satisfactorily established in this case. Thus, the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.