G.R. No. 227394 , June 6, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NORJANA SOOD Y AMATONDIN, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This case involves an appeal from a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution evidence stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted against accused-appellant Norjana Sood y Amatondin. Following her arrest, the police officers conducted an inventory and photographing of the seized drugs.
The testimonies of the apprehending officers revealed inconsistencies regarding the location where the inventory was conducted—whether it was at the barangay office or the police station. Crucially, the inventory was witnessed only by a barangay official and a media representative. No representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) was present. The prosecution offered the justification that they sought “to avoid any commotion at the area because there will be vehicular traffic,” which the court found to be hollow and unjustifiable.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs, given the police officers’ non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused-appellant. The ruling, as concurred with by Justice Peralta, emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody. The conflicting testimonies on the inventory location cast doubt on the regularity of the police procedure. More significantly, the mandatory witness requirement under the law at the time of the offense was not complied with, as the DOJ representative was absent. The proffered justification for this absence was deemed insufficient to constitute a justifiable ground under the law.
Justice Peralta’s Separate Concurring Opinion elaborated on the legal framework, noting that while R.A. No. 10640 later amended Section 21 to require only two witnesses (an elected public official and either a National Prosecution Service or media representative), the strict requirements of the original law governed this case. He highlighted the legislative intent behind the amendment, which acknowledged the practical difficulties faced by law enforcers in securing all witnesses, especially in remote areas or dangerous situations. However, these amendments and their more flexible “justifiable grounds” clause did not apply retroactively to excuse the procedural lapses in this instance. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were not preserved, leading to reasonable doubt.