G.R. No. 232950 August 13, 2018
KENNETH SANTOS y ITALIG, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Kenneth Santos was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on September 11, 2012, police officers on patrol in Caloocan City observed Santos at a street corner holding a plastic sachet. Upon closer inspection, the officers identified the contents as marijuana. When they approached and identified themselves, Santos attempted to flee but was apprehended. A subsequent body search yielded twelve more plastic sachets containing marijuana. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and later confirmed by forensic examination to be marijuana. Santos denied the charges, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested while watching a basketball game and that the evidence was planted after he refused to pay a bribe.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Santos, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals with a minor penalty modification. The courts held that the warrantless arrest was valid as he was caught in flagrante delicto, and that despite the absence of certain required witnesses during the inventory, there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rules under Section 21 of RA 9165, preserving the integrity of the seized evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the validity of the warrantless arrest and the integrity of the chain of custody. For a valid arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, the person must be committing, has just committed, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. Here, the police officers personally observed Santos in possession of a plastic sachet containing what they recognized as marijuana, based on their training and experience, before they approached him. This constituted a crime being committed in their presence, justifying the immediate warrantless arrest and the subsequent search incidental to that arrest, which yielded more sachets.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court applied the rule of substantial compliance, as clarified by RA 10640, which amended RA 9165. While the inventory was not conducted in the presence of a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media, the apprehending officers sufficiently established the unbroken chain through testimony detailing the marking, inventory, and transfer of the evidence to the crime laboratory. The prosecution demonstrated that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved from the time of confiscation until laboratory testing. Minor procedural lapses, absent any evidence of bad faith or tampering, do not invalidate an otherwise lawful seizure. Petitioner’s defenses of denial and frame-up, being unsubstantiated, cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the police officers and the established chain of custody.