G.R. No.

232496, October 08, 2018

1. Abadilla was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. On arraignment, Abadilla pleaded "not
guilty" to the charge.
2. The trial court opined that the accused was validly caught in flagrante selling  shabu through a buy-
bust operation conducted by members of the LCPS. The poseur-buyer, PO2 Ganir, positively
identified him as the seller and testified that in the course of the buy-bust operation, the sale
transaction took place.
3. It likewise opined that since the integrity of the seized item has been maintained, the absence of an
elected public official, representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the
marking, inventory and photography of the seized items is not fatal to the prosecution's case.
4. Abadilla insists that his warrantless arrest being illegal, the allegedly confiscated  shabu  should not
have been admitted in evidence for being fruit of the poisonous tree.

Issue: Whether or not Abadilla’s warrantless arrest being illegal, the allegedly confiscated shabu should
not have been admitted in evidence.

Ruling: NO, Abadillas’ arrest is legal but the shabu should not be admitted in evidence since the chain of
custody rule was violated

The prosecution must prove with moral certainty the identity of the prohibited drug, considering
that the dangerous drug itself forms part of the corpus delicti of the crime. The prosecution has to show an
unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drugs so as to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the
identity of the dangerous drugs on account of switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.
Accordingly, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody from the
moment that the illegal drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. In
addition to the requirements of venue of physical inventory and photography of the seized items, Section
21 also requires the presence of three witnesses during the actual inventory,  i.e., (1) an elected public
official, (2) a representative from the DOJ and (3) a representative from the media.

Here, the unjustified absence of these witnesses during the inventory constitutes a substantial
gap in the chain of custody. This procedural lapse cannot be cured by the simple expedient of invoking
the saving clause found in Section 21 or the presumption that the arresting officers performed their duties
in a regular manner. Where the official act in question is irregular on its face, the presumption of
regularity cannot stand. There being a substantial gap or break in the chain, it casts serious doubts on the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself.
 G.R. No. 233084, October 08, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR VELASCO Y PORCIUNCULA
Facts:

1. A team comprised of members of the Philippine National Police Muntinlupa City, Station Anti-Illegal
Drugs - Special Operations Task Group (PNP Muntinlupa SAID-SOTG) conducted a buy-bust
operation against Velasco, during which: (a) he allegedly sold to the poseur-buyer a plastic sachet
containing 0.02 gram of suspected methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; and (b) during his
arrest, another sachet containing 0.02 gram of suspected methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu,
was recovered from him.

2. The team, together with Velasco, then proceeded to the PNP Muntinlupa SAID-SOTG headquarters
where the seized items were photographed and inventoried in the presence of one Jemma V.
Gonzales of the Muntinlupa City Government's Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Office (DAPCO
Operative Gonzales).

3. Thereafter, the seized items were brought to the crime laboratory where, after examination, 6 they
tested positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.

Issue: Whether not Velasco should be acquitted.

Ruling: Yes.

The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the
accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as
certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; 22 or
(b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "an elected public official and a representative of the
National Prosecution Service or the media."23 The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily
"to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or
contamination of evidence."

Here, the justification offered by PO2 Genova – that they suspect Velasco to have connections
with the barangay which could jeopardize the buy-bust operation against him – was not only flimsy, but
also self-serving and unsubstantiated. In fact, PO2 Genova himself admitted that the buy-bust team did
not even bother to check if Velasco indeed had such connections. As these justifications would not pass
the foregoing standard to trigger the operation of the saving clause, the Court is therefore constrained to
conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Velasco were
compromised, which consequently warrants his acquittal.
 G.R. NO. 233697, July 10, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. ARNELLO REFE Y GONZALES
Facts:

1. Arnello was charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. After the buy –bust operation, PO1
Llama proceeded to mark the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, with the
initials of the accused: "AGR." Present during the marking were the barangay officials of
Nagsanga, specifically: Barangay Captain Rogelio Menor, Barangay Kagawad  Bulosan, and
Barangay Tanod  Garaza, Jr.1

2. Upon finishing the marking, the police officers took Arnello to the police station where they
conducted the inventory. The inventory, or the Acknowledgment Receipt of Property/Articles
Seized, was prepared in the presence of Arnello and the barangay officials.

3. Arnello denied that a buy-bust operation took place. The police officers forcibly boarded Arnello
inside a Hilux vehicle and took him to his house. They went inside and searched the place, while
Arnello was outside, with his wrists handcuffed. The police did not find anything, so they took
Arnello to the police station where they beat him, and put him in jail. Arnello was detained for
five days.

Issue: Whether or not the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were duly preserved.

Ruling: No, The records of the ease reveal substantial inadequacies in the police officers' compliance with
the requirements on the chain of custody, pursuant to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The prosecution was
also unable to provide a justifiable ground for this non-compliance.

The apprehending officers must  immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized
items in the presence of the following: (a) the accused or the person from whom the items were
confiscated, or his representative or counsel; (b) a representative from the media; (c) a representative from
the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (d) any elected public official. They must also sign the inventory and
be furnished with their own copy thereof.

In this case, it is evident, that the arresting officers did not strictly observe the statutory requirements for
the chain of custody.

First, the inventory and taking of photographs were not immediately conducted at the place of arrest.

Second, the arresting officers did not conduct the inventory and take photographs of the seized items in
the presence of a DOJ representative and a media representative. 

Finally, the prosecution did not present any justification for these procedural lapses on the part of the
police officers. There was also no showing that earnest efforts were made to comply with the mandated
procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.