GR 243627; (November, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 243627 , November 27, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Xandra Santos y Littaua a.k.a. “Xandra Santos Littaua,” Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
This case stemmed from two Informations charging accused-appellant Xandra Santos y Littaua with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on January 16, 2016, a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant in Valenzuela City, resulting in the recovery of one plastic sachet from the sale and another from her possession upon search. Due to a forming crowd, the police officers brought accused-appellant to the police station where they marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized items in the presence of an elected barangay official, Kagawad Roberto Dawat. The items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused-appellant denied the charges, claiming she was forcibly taken and framed.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs with moral certainty, particularly through strict compliance with the chain of custody procedures under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellant. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody due to unjustified non-compliance with the witness requirement under the law. The inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted only in the presence of an elected public official (Kagawad Dawat) and the accused-appellant, but without a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media, as required by RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640 (effective August 7, 2014). The prosecution’s sole explanation for this lapse—that the police tried to contact but could not secure these witnesses—was deemed insufficient. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove genuine and earnest efforts to secure the required witnesses, and mere statements of unavailability are unacceptable. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were therefore compromised, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.