G.R. No. 252154 , March 4, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TAMIL SELVI VELOO AND N. CHANDRAR NADARAJAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

This is a Concurring Opinion by Justice Caguioa in a case involving the conviction of accused-appellants Tamil Selvi Veloo and N. Chandrar Naderajan for one count of violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The case did not involve a buy-bust operation but an in flagrante delicto arrest following an airport search, described as a “spur-of-the-moment” seizure. The opening of the bag containing the seized items occurred in a crowded airport, observed by a number of witnesses. Officers from the Bureau of Customs witnessed the inventory.

ISSUE

The primary issue addressed in the concurring opinion is whether the failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 affects the admissibility or merely the evidentiary weight of the seized dangerous drugs.

RULING

Justice Caguioa concurs in the conviction of the accused-appellants. The ruling clarifies that chain of custody is a method of authenticating real evidence, and non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is an issue of admissibility, not merely of evidentiary weight. The requirements under Section 21 are exclusionary rules of evidence. However, in exceptional cases, non-compliance may be excused if: (1) justifiable grounds exist for the departure from strict compliance, and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this case, justifiable grounds were present due to the totality of circumstances: the arrest was not a pre-planned buy-bust but a spur-of-the-moment seizure at an airport, the search was conducted in a crowded place with multiple witnesses, and officers from the Bureau of Customs (state agents comparable to DOJ representatives) witnessed the inventory. Therefore, the seized items were admissible, and the appeal was denied.