G.R. No. 252154 , March 4, 2021.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Tamil Selvi Veloo and N. Chandrar Nadarajan, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Tamil Selvi Veloo and N. Chandrar Nadarajan, both Malaysian nationals, were charged with two counts of violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Transportation of Dangerous Drugs). On June 16, 2012, they arrived together at NAIA Terminal 2 on a flight from Hong Kong. At the Customs area, Veloo was found to be carrying a black Dibola luggage. Customs Examiner Carol Buenconsejo, suspicious of Veloo’s declaration of having nothing to declare, inspected the luggage and discovered a false bottom containing ten heat-sealed plastic bags with white crystalline substance, later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride with a total weight of 4,018.03 grams. Veloo pointed to Nadarajan, calling him her husband. Nadarajan was apprehended near the exit. His black Phoenix bag was later retrieved and was also found to have a false bottom containing six heat-sealed plastic bags with a substance later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 2,000 grams. The photographing and inventory of the seized items from both bags were conducted in the presence of the accused, a barangay kagawad, and a media reporter, but without a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused on both charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The accused appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime and that the apprehending officers failed to comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , specifically the absence of a DOJ representative during inventory.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of accused-appellants for violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 should be upheld despite the alleged non-compliance with the witness requirement under Section 21.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal. The conviction of both accused in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-12-05297-CR (involving the Dibola bag carried by Veloo) was AFFIRMED. However, they were ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-12-05298-CR (involving the Phoenix bag carried by Nadarajan). The Court ruled that for the Dibola bag, the prosecution established all elements of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs and proved an unbroken chain of custody. The apprehending officers substantially complied with Section 21. The absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory was justified because earnest efforts to secure one were made, but none was available. The saving clause under the law’s Implementing Rules was properly invoked, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. For the Phoenix bag, the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody. The evidence did not establish who had custody of Nadarajan’s bag from the time he was apprehended without it until it was retrieved and presented at the exclusion room more than an hour later. This gap created reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same items seized from him, warranting acquittal.