G.R. No. 257747, February 05, 2025
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AMALIA SORIANO Y REALINGO A.K.A. “AMY”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Amalia Soriano y Realingo was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on July 1, 2014, based on a search warrant, police officers recovered from her house twenty (20) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, with a total net weight of 16.9618 grams, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The seizing officer, PO1 Jesus Togores, marked and inventoried the items at the place of seizure in the presence of Soriano, a DOJ representative, a media representative, and a barangay kagawad. PO1 Togores testified that from the moment of seizure until he personally delivered them to the crime laboratory, the seized items remained in his custody. Soriano denied the accusation, testifying that the police found nothing during the search. The Regional Trial Court convicted Soriano of illegal possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Soriano appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti due to an inadequate chain of custody, specifically pointing to the lack of testimony on whether the seized items were placed in a secure container or evidence bag and raising an issue regarding the non-admission into evidence of the RTC’s Order dated July 1, 2014 (the return of the search warrant).

ISSUE

Whether the chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs was established beyond reasonable doubt, thereby preserving their integrity and evidentiary value, notwithstanding the lack of specific testimony on the use of an evidence bag.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the chain of custody was sufficiently established. The testimony of PO1 Togores detailed an unbroken chain from the seizure, marking, and inventory at the scene, to his personal custody during transport to the police station and the court for the return of the warrant, and finally to his personal delivery to the forensic chemist. The Court ruled that the lack of testimony on whether an evidence bag was used is not fatal. The primary consideration is the handling and transfer of the evidence from one officer to another. The type of container used is merely a factor in assessing the overall care taken to preserve the evidence’s integrity. Under the circumstances, where the seizing officer maintained continuous personal custody of a significant quantity of drugs (16.9618 grams) and personally delivered them to the examining chemist, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The non-admission of the RTC Order dated July 1, 2014 was also deemed inconsequential, as the testimony on the return of the warrant was already part of the records and the defense had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness on it. The appeal was denied, and the CA decision affirming the RTC judgment was upheld.