G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Norin Sendad y Kundo a.k.a. “Nhorain Sendad y Kusain,” Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This case stemmed from two Criminal Complaints for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on January 11, 2013, a buy-bust operation was successfully implemented against accused-appellant Norin Sendad, resulting in the recovery of two plastic sachets from the sale and four more plastic sachets from her person upon search. The seized items were marked, and an inventory and photography were conducted at the police station in the presence of Sendad, a Barangay Kagawad, and a media representative. Notably, there was no Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel present during the inventory. The items were later examined and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. In her defense, Sendad denied the charges, claiming she was arbitrarily arrested while shopping, and her testimony was corroborated by security personnel who stated they had no knowledge of any commotion or apprehension at the location on that date. The Regional Trial Court found Sendad guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals with modification on the penalty for illegal possession.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs with moral certainty, given a deviation from the chain of custody procedure, specifically the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory and photography as required under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 prior to its amendment by RA 10640.

RULING

The appeal is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted accused-appellant Norin Sendad. The Court held that in drug cases, it is essential to establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty by accounting for each link in the chain of custody. The law requires the inventory and photography to be conducted in the presence of the accused or her representative, and three witnesses: (1) an elected public official; (2) a representative from the media; and (3) a representative from the DOJ, given that the offense occurred prior to the amendment by RA 10640. In this case, the prosecution admitted the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory, which constituted a breach of the mandatory witness requirement. The prosecution failed to provide any justifiable ground for this non-compliance or to prove that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such a witness. 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 based on reasonable doubt.