G.R. No. 229826 , July 30, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia Cabrellos y Dela Cruz, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Patricia Cabrellos y Dela Cruz was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165). The prosecution’s evidence stemmed from a buy-bust operation. Following her arrest, the police conducted an initial inventory of the seized items at the place of arrest in the presence of an elected public official. However, the required representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media were not present at that time. The police then transported the accused and the evidence to the police station, where they conducted a second inventory witnessed by the DOJ and media representatives, but this time without the elected public official.
The defense argued a failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically the mandated presence of the three witnesses—an elected public official, and representatives from the DOJ and the media—during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. The prosecution offered no justifiable explanation for this procedural lapse, particularly for re-doing the inventory at the station without the elected official who was initially present.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs despite the police’s non-compliance with the witness requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellant. The ruling, as concurred with by Justice Peralta, emphasized that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure is crucial in drug cases. The law requires the presence of insulating witnesses during the inventory to prevent planting, contamination, or switching of evidence. In this case, the police failed to adhere to the “three-witness rule” under the original text of RA 9165, which was applicable at the time of the offense. Their act of conducting a second inventory at the station, which lacked the previously present elected official, constituted a breach of the prescribed procedure.
The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable ground for this non-compliance. The Court stressed that while the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) and the subsequent amendment by RA 10640 provide a saving clause allowing non-compliance under justifiable grounds, the burden lies with the prosecution to prove such grounds and, more importantly, to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nonetheless preserved. Here, the unjustified deviation from the witness requirement created reasonable doubt about the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, the accused must be acquitted based on the failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.