ROWENA SANTOS y COMPRADO and RYAN SANTOS y COMPRADO v.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 242656, 14 August 2019, SECOND DIVISION (Caguioa, J.)
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Here, the police officers were also able to strictly comply with the requirements laid down
in Section 21 (1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165).
FACTS:
Two separate criminal Information were filed against Rowena Santos (Rowena) and Ryan Santos (Ryan)
for violation of Section 11, Article II or (R.A. No. 9165). Several police officers attended an operational
briefing at the Intelligence Section of Naga City Police in connection with the implementation of three
search warrants issued against Gomer Aquiban (Gomer), Rowena, Ryan, Ronnie Santos (Ronnie) and
Romeo Santos (Romeo).
Thereafter, the team, composed of around ten members proceeded to Sagrada Familia, Naga City. Upon
arrival, Police Officer 1 Joker Albao (PO1 Albao) went to the house of Ryan and promptly informed the
latter of the search warrant. Ryan was handcuffed and was transferred to the room of Rowena where both
accused were informed of the contents of the warrant. While converged at Rowena's house, they waited
for the arrival of the mandatory witnesses: Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Perry Boy Solano
(Solano), media representative Adiel Auxillo (Auxillo), and Barangay Kagawad Ma. Celina Breñis
(Breñis). In the presence of Police Officer 3 Louie Ordoñez (PO3 Ordoñez), Rowena and the mandatory
witnesses, the police officers began searching and found several assorted cellphones, some cash, and
empty plastic sachets of sachet.
They likewise found money and sachets of shabu in Ryan’s house which PO1 Albao marked in the
presence of Ryan, the mandatory witnesses, and police officers. PO3 Ordoñez prepared the Receipt of
Property Seized and Certification. The mandatory witnesses also affixed their respective signatures on
both documents. The entire inventory proceeding was also photographed.
They proceeded to the Naga Police Station for booking and recording. PO3 Ordoñez turned all the seized
items over to Police Officer 3 August Florece (PO3 Florece).
PO3 Florece brought the specimens to the provincial crime laboratory for examination. The laboratory
examination of the seven items yielded a positive result for the presence of dangerous drugs. Both the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) found Rowena and Ryan (petitioners) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
ISSUE:
Is the chain of custody rule complied with?
RULING:
YES. At the outset, the Court notes that the issues raised in the Petition are factual and evidentiary in
nature, which are outside the Court's scope of review in Rule 45 petitions. Still, the Court finds no
reversible error committed by the CA in affirming petitioners' guilt for violation of Section 11, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165.
The petitioners argue that the corpus delicti had not been fully established and that the chain of custody
rule was not followed, thus the integrity of the dangerous drugs was not ensured and their identity was not
established with moral certainty.
The procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs under Section 21 (1),
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides that the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof.
In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti and an unbroken chain
of custody. The Court has explained in a catena of cases the four (4) links that should be established
in the chain of custody of the confiscated item:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused
by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court.
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove all the links that should be established in the chain of
custody. Moreover, the police officers were also able to strictly comply with the requirements laid down
in Section 21. They conducted the physical inventory and photography of the seized items in the presence
of petitioners, a representative from the media, a representative of the DOJ and a barangay official at the
place where the search was conducted.
