Sayson vs. People

In prosecutions for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, the prosecution must comply with the mandatory witness requirement for inventory and photographing of seized items; mere allegations of witness unavailability without proof of genuine and sufficient efforts to secure their presence cannot justify non-compliance, and failure to establish the integrity of the chain of custody warrants acquittal.

Police officers from Police Station 11, Quezon City received information from a confidential informant regarding drug activities of Joseph Sayson y Parocha. Acting on this information, they formed a buy-bust team and conducted an operation on July 25, 2016 at ROTC Hunters, Tatalon, Quezon City. During the operation, the police claimed to have seized suspected shabu from the petitioner, leading to his arrest and subsequent prosecution for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: On July 25, 2016, acting on information from a confidential informant, members of Police Station 11, Quezon City formed a buy-bust team and conducted an operation against petitioner at ROTC Hunters, Tatalon, Quezon City. The police claimed that during the operation, they recovered one sachet of suspected shabu from the petitioner.
• Seizure of Additional Evidence: Upon arresting and frisking petitioner, the police officers allegedly recovered five additional sachets of suspected shabu from his possession.
• Marking and Inventory Procedure: Due to a crowd gathering at the place of arrest and causing a commotion, Police Officer I Florante Lacob brought the confiscated items to the Barangay Hall of Tatalon, Quezon City for marking and inventory. Ex-Officio Conrado M. Manalo, the duty desk officer at the barangay hall, witnessed the marking and inventory. No other witnesses were present.
• Laboratory Examination: The police officers brought petitioner and the seized items to the police station, then to the crime laboratory where the contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
• Defense Version: Petitioner denied the accusations, claiming that he was waiting for his nephew at his sister's house when five police officers suddenly appeared, frisked him and his neighbors, searched the area, and brought them to the police station where they were forced to confess to alleged drug activities.

• Chain of Custody Violation: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, particularly regarding the mandatory presence of required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of seized items.
• Insufficient Justification for Non-Compliance: Petitioner maintained that the police officers' mere allegation of unavailability of witnesses, without proof of actual and serious attempts to contact them, could not justify the deviation from the statutory requirements.
• Compromised Integrity of Evidence: Petitioner contended that the failure to comply with the witness requirement compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime.

• Sufficient Compliance with Chain of Custody: Respondent argued that the buy-bust team complied with the chain of custody procedure, noting that the marking at the barangay hall was justified due to the crowd causing a commotion at the crime scene.
• Earnest Efforts to Secure Witnesses: Respondent maintained that the police exerted earnest efforts to contact the required witnesses to the marking and inventory, but none were available or came to the scene.
• Preservation of Evidence Integrity: Respondent contended that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved notwithstanding the procedural deviations, and that all elements of illegal possession were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Compliance with Witness Requirement: Whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory witness requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, for the inventory and photographing of seized dangerous drugs.
• Justification for Procedural Deviation: Whether the police officers' alleged inability to secure the presence of required witnesses constituted justifiable ground for non-compliance with the chain of custody procedure.
• Integrity of Corpus Delicti: Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved despite non-compliance with statutory requirements.

• Compliance with Witness Requirement: The prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory witness requirement. Under RA 10640, which became effective on August 7, 2014, the inventory and photographing of seized items must be conducted in the presence of an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. Records showed that the inventory was conducted only in the presence of Manalo, the duty desk officer at the Barangay Hall, constituting total lack of compliance with the witness requirement.
• Justification for Procedural Deviation: Mere allegations that police officers tried to contact mandatory witnesses but no one arrived cannot be deemed reasonable justification for deviation from mandatory directives. Absent a showing that actual and serious attempts were employed to contact the required witnesses, such claims are unacceptable as they fail to demonstrate genuine and sufficient efforts by the police officers.
• Integrity of Corpus Delicti: The integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from petitioner, which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime charged, have been compromised. Consequently, the conviction must be overturned and the petitioner acquitted.

• Chain of Custody Rule in Drug Cases: In prosecutions for offenses involving illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. The law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as required witnesses.
• Mandatory Witness Requirement under RA 10640: For offenses committed after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 (effective August 7, 2014), the inventory and photographing must be witnessed by: (a) an elected public official; and (b) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.
• Justifiable Grounds for Deviation: Strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure is required; however, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for the deviation; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
• Genuine and Sufficient Efforts Standard: Non-compliance with the witness requirement may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit the latter failed to appear. Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. Police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time from the moment they receive information about the activities of the accused until the time of arrest to prepare for a buy-bust operation and make necessary arrangements to comply with the chain of custody rule.

• "The sheer allegation that the police officers tried to contact the mandatory witnesses but that no one arrived cannot be deemed reasonable enough to justify a deviation from the mandatory directives of the law. As aforesaid, mere claims of unavailability, absent a showing that actual and serious attempts were employed to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as they fail to show that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by police officers."
• "In view of the foregoing, the Court is constrained to rule that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from petitioner, which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime charged, have been compromised. Hence, his conviction must be overturned."

• People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 238212, January 27, 2020 — Cited for the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
• People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019 — Controlling precedent establishing that mere statements of unavailability of witnesses, absent actual serious attempts to contact them, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance with chain of custody requirements.
• People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019 — Followed for the principle that police officers are given sufficient time to prepare for buy-bust operations and make arrangements to comply with the chain of custody rule, and that non-compliance with witness requirements requires proof of genuine and sufficient efforts to secure their presence.
• People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51 (2010) — Cited for the rule that where strict compliance with chain of custody is not possible, seizure will not be rendered void if justifiable grounds exist and integrity is preserved.
• People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439 (2018) — Cited regarding chain of custody requirements.
• People v. Crispo, et al., 828 Phil. 416 (2018) — Cited in Gabunada regarding police preparation time for buy-bust operations.

• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as amended — Defines and penalizes illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The provision requires proof that the accused was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug, such possession was not authorized by law, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 — Governs the chain of custody procedure, requiring that the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of seized items be conducted immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or his representative/counsel, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media (for offenses committed after August 7, 2014).

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson) and Hernando, J.