7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897

Same; Same; Chain of Custody Rule; Section 21 of

Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 provides for the procedural
safeguards in the handling of seized drugs by the
apprehending officer/team.—Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
provides for the procedural safeguards in the handling of
  seized drugs by the apprehending officer/team, to wit: Section
  21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
G.R. No. 233251.  March 13, 2019.* Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
  Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.—
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous
ROBEN D. DURAN, accused-appellant. drugs, plant sources or dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and or
Dangerous Drugs; Elements of.—In actions involving the surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control
first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
place, and (2) the presentation in physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence
of the accused or the persons/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
* THIRD DIVISION. (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
 
Same; Same; Same; To properly guide law enforcement
 
agents as to the proper handling of confiscated drugs, Section
142 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 filled in the details as to
where the inventory and photographing of seized items had to
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
be done, and added a saving clause in case the procedure is
People vs. Duran not followed.—To properly guide law enforcement agents as to
the proper handling of confiscated drugs, Section 21(a), Article
II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A.
court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
No. 9165 filled in the details as to where the inventory and
The existence of corpus delicti is essential to a judgment of
photographing of seized items had to be done, and added a
conviction. Hence, the identity of the dangerous drug must be
saving clause in case the procedure is not followed: (a) The
clearly established.
apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/26

7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897

of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, R.A. No. 9165, incorporated the saving clause contained in the
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence IRR, and requires only two (2) witnesses to be present during
of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photograph
confiscated and/or seized, or of the seized items, namely: (a) an elected public official; and
(b) either a representative from the National Prosecution
  Service or the media.
 
Same; Same; Same; Although the failure of the
143 apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid
out in Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) does not ipso facto
VOL. 897, MARCH 13, 2019 143
render the seizure and custody over the items as void and
People vs. Duran invalid, the prosecution must satisfactorily prove that: (a)
there is justifiable ground for noncompliance, and (b) the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
preserved.—It bears stressing that while it was shown that the
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
Barangay Captain was present during the marking and
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies
inventory of the seized item, the other witnesses required
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That
under Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, i.e., representatives
the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
from media and the DOJ, were not present. Although the
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further, That noncompliance with these  
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the  
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall 144
not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items.
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Same; Same; Same; Insulating Witnesses; Republic Act
People vs. Duran
(RA) No. 10640, which amended Section 21 of RA No. 9165,
incorporated the saving clause contained in the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR), and requires only two (2) and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and
witnesses to be present during the conduct of the physical custody over the items as void and invalid, the prosecution
inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items, must satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for
namely: (a) an elected public official; and (b) either a noncompliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of
representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the seized items are properly preserved. Here, the prosecution
the media.—R.A. No. 10640, which amended Section 21 of did not provide any plausible explanation or justification on
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/26
7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897

why the presence of the representatives from media and DOJ 3-13.
was not secured. The justifiable ground for noncompliance
must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume  
what these grounds are or that they even exist.  

Same; Same; Same; The unjustified noncompliance by the 145

police officers of the required procedures under Section 21 of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and
VOL. 897, MARCH 13, 2019 145
Regulations (IRR) resulted in a substantial gap in the chain of
custody of the seized item from appellant which put the People vs. Duran
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item in question.
—The unjustified noncompliance by the police officers of the tion 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165,
required procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its otherwise known as the  Comprehensive Dangerous
IRR resulted in a substantial gap in the chain of custody of the Drugs Act of 2002.
seized item from appellant which put the integrity and In an Information2 dated December 9, 2013,
evidentiary value of the seized item in question. Resultantly, appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Art.
the appellant must be acquitted of the crime charged. II of R.A. No. 9165, as follows:

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals, That on or about December 6, 2013, in the
Cagayan de Oro City. Municipality of Carmen, Province of Davao del Norte,
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
    Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff- Honorable Court, the above named accused, without
appellee. being authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
     Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant. unlawfully and knowingly deal, sell and distribute dried
marijuana fruiting tops weighing 9.9875 grams to PO2
  Bencent T. Manglalan, who acted as poseur[-]buyer.3
PERALTA,  J.:
   
Before us is an appeal from the Decision1 dated June Appellant, duly assisted by counsel, was arraigned
8, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cagayan de Oro and pleaded not guilty4  to the charge. Pretrial and trial
City, in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01523 finding appellant thereafter ensued.
guilty of illegal sale of marijuana, a dangerous drug, in The prosecution presented the testimonies of PO2
violation of Sec- Bencent T. Manglalan**  (PO2 Manglalan) and SPO1
Jonathan O. Tabigue***  (SPO1 Tabigue) which
established the following:
_______________
At 9:30 p.m. of December 6, 2013, PO2 Manglalan
1 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, concurred in by and SPO1 Tabigue were on duty at Carmen Police
Associate Justices Ronaldo B. Martin and Louis P. Acosta; Rollo, pp. Station, Davao del Norte, when their Chief of Police,

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/26

7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897

Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Reny Valdesco received a SPO1 Tabigue as his back rider.9  They were following
report from their confidential informant (CI) that the motorcycle driven by the CI who led them to the
appellant was selling marijuana at  Purok  3- target area.10  Upon reaching the area, the team
A,**** Barangay Sto. Nino, Carmen.5 Immediately, PSI positioned themselves at the corner portion of
the barangay road and highway. PO2 Manglalan and the
_______________ CI waited for appellant, while SPO1 Tabigue positioned
himself at the dark portion of the road which was about
2 Records, p. 1. 20 meters away from them.11  The rest of the buy-bust
3 Id. team were standing at the other side of the road waiting
4 Id., at p. 17. for their call.12  After 5-10 minutes, appellant arrived
**  Also referred to as “Maglalan” in some part of the Rollo and onboard a motorcycle driven by another person and was
Records. parked near an electric post which was twenty to 20-25
***  Also referred to as “Tabique” in some parts of the Rollo and meters away from where PO2 Manglalan and the CI
Records. were waiting.13  When appellant alighted from the
**** Also referred to as “Purok 3C” in some parts of the Rollo and motorcycle, PO2 Manglalan and the CI approached the
Records. former and the CI introduced PO2 Manglalan as “Ku-
5 TSN, November 13, 2014, p. 3. an,” who would like to score as he had already told him
earlier.14 Appellant then pulled out from his right pocket
 
the marijuana wrapped in a printed paper and gave it to
 
PO2 Manglalan and told them
146
_______________

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 6 Id., at pp. 4-5.

People vs. Duran 7 Id., at pp. 5-6.
8 TSN, January 26, 2015, pp. 20-21.
9 Id., at pp. 7-8.
Valdesco conducted a briefing for a possible entrapment
10 Id., at p. 7.
operation on the appellant. The briefing was attended by
11 TSN, November 13, 2014, pp. 10-11.
Police Inspector (PI) Ruel V. Sinahon, PO2 Manglalan
12 Id., at p. 10.
who was designated to act as the poseur-buyer, SPO1
13 Id., at pp. 10-11.
Tabigue as the arresting officer, and the CI.6  PO2
14 Id., at p. 12.
Manglalan was given a P200 bill as the buy-bust money
which he marked by placing number “10”  
thereon.7  The  Barangay  Captain of  Purok  3-A was  
informed of the buy-bust operation.8  At 9:55 p.m., the
team left the police station onboard the motorcycles. 147
PO2 Manglalan was the driver of the motorcycle with
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/26
7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897

VOL. 897, MARCH 13, 2019 147 19 Id.

20 Id.
People vs. Duran
21 Id., at pp. 14-16.
22 Id., at p. 18.
that he was in a hurry.15 After verifying the content that 23 Id., at p. 17.
it was indeed marijuana fruiting tops, PO2 Manglalan 24 Id., at pp. 18-19.
gave the P200 marked money to appellant who took and 25 Id., at p. 19.
placed it inside his pocket.16  PO2 Manglalan then held 26 Id., at p. 20.
appellant’s hand and introduced himself as a policeman 27 Records, p. 24.
and informed him of his offense.17  SPO1 Tabigue ran
towards them and started frisking the appellant and was  
able to recover from the latter’s pocket the buy-bust  
money.18  The other team members then
19 148
arrived.   Appellant’s companion who was still on the
motorcycle hurriedly fled.20
PO2 Manglalan and SPO1 Tabigue marked this 148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
seized item with “BTM” and “JOB,” respectively, at the People vs. Duran
crime scene and in the presence of the appellant and
Barangay Captain Mario Catungal, while PO3 Bernard
Forensic Chemist, which showed that the examination
Gabisan took pictures.21 The team, together with the
of the seized item weighing 9.9875 grams yielded
appellant, proceeded to the police station with SPO1
positive results for marijuana, a dangerous drug.
Tabigue having custody of the seized item.22 The
Appellant denied the charge. He claimed that in the
inventory of the seized item was made at the police
early evening of December 6, 2013, he was riding a
station.23 SPO1 Tabigue handed the seized item to PO3
motorcycle for hire on his way to the house of Roselyn
Gabisan, the investigator of the case, for documentation
Catobog in Purok 3 Cebulano, Carmen, to invite her to
and preparation of the request for laboratory
watch the opening of Christmas lighting in Barangay
examination.24 PO2 Manglalan then delivered the seized
Ising.28 While on his way, the motorcycle he was riding
item to the crime laboratory at 1:35 a.m. the following
was flagged down by a woman whom he later learned
day,25 which was received by a certain PO1 Rhuffy D.
was a childhood friend of Roselyn and was on the way
Federe.26 Chemistry Report No. D-259-201327 was
to Roselyn’s house to invite her also to watch the
issued by Police Chief Inspector Virginia S. Gucor,
Christmas lighting.29 He later learned the name of the
woman as Antonette Yama.30 He, together with Roselyn
_______________ and Antonette, rode a motorcycle driven by Antonette’s
15 Id. cousin on the way to Barangay Ising when Antonette
16 Id., at pp. 12-13. asked the driver to stop at a corner of Barangay Sto.
17 Id., at p. 13. Nino and the national highway.31 When the motorcycle
18 Id., at p. 14. stopped, two men wearing civilian clothes came to the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/26
7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897

them, pointed a gun at him and pulled him out of the violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
motorcycle, frisked him and directed him to drop on the Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
ground, took his cell phone and P100.00 cash, and imprisonment and fine in the amount of Php500,000.00.
arrested him for allegedly selling marijuana fruiting The one (1) pack of dried marijuana fruiting tops
tops.32 weighing 9.9875 grams is hereby ordered confiscated
Roselyn Catabog corroborated appellant’s testimony.33 and forfeited in favor of the government through the
She also testified that she had a brief relationship with PDEA to be disposed of by the latter in accordance with
appellant before he was arrested; that she learned from existing laws and regulations. In connection thereto,
appellant’s cousin that a crime was imputed against appellant; PDEA Regional Office XI, Davao City is directed to
and, that she acceded to the request of appellant’s cousin to assume custody of the subject drug for its proper
testify as she pitied appellant who was not selling marijuana at disposition and destruction within ten (10) days from
the time of his arrest.34 notice.
SO ORDERED.36
_______________
 
28 TSN, June 24, 2015, pp. 5-7. The RTC found that the prosecution failed to establish the
29 Id., at pp. 6-7. adverted sale of the subject marijuana between the poseur-
30 Id., at p. 9. buyer and the appellant, since there was no discussion between
31 Id., at p. 19. them relative to the object and consideration that took place;
32 Id., at pp. 19-21. and, that appellant simply handed the marijuana to PO2
33 TSN, August 19, 2015, pp. 5-14. Manglalan after declaring that he was in a hurry. However,
34 Id., at pp. 14-15. appellant can be held liable for the act of dealing and
distributing marijuana which was included in the charge since
  the exchange of marijuana and the money was deemed
  established. It also found that while there was no cogent
reason why the inventory was not done at the crime scene,
149
however, it was shown that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the illegal substance was preserved.
VOL. 897, MARCH 13, 2019 149 Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal. After the filing of the
parties’ respective briefs before the CA, the case was
People vs. Duran
submitted for decision.

On February 11, 2016, the Regional Trial Court

_______________
(RTC), Branch 34, Panabo City rendered its Decision,35
the decretal portion of which reads: 36 Id., at p. 52.
35 CA Rollo, pp. 39-52; Per Presiding Judge Dax Gonzaga Xenos.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding
Roben D. Duran guilty beyond reasonable doubt of  
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/26
7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897

  item and prepared Chemistry Report No. D-259-2013

confirming that the specimen tested positive for marijuana.
150 The seized item was presented during trial and was identified
by PO2 Manglalan and SPO1 Tabigue.
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with this Court.
People vs. Duran We required the parties to simultaneously file their
respective sup-
On June 8, 2017, the CA rendered its assailed Decision
denying the appeal, the dispositive portion of which reads: _______________

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is denied. The 37 Rollo, p. 13.

Decision dated February 11, 2016, of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Eleventh (11th) Judicial Region, Branch
 
 
34, Panabo City, finding the accused-appellant Roben
D. Duran in Criminal Case No. CrC 611-2013, guilty 151
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.37 VOL. 897, MARCH 13, 2019 151
People vs. Duran
 
The CA held that the prosecution was able to establish all
the elements of the illegal sale of marijuana. Appellant was
plemental briefs if they so desired. Both parties filed
positively identified by PO2 Manglalan as the same person
their respective Manifestations stating that they are no
from whom he purchased the dried marijuana fruiting tops for
longer filing their supplemental briefs and were adopting
a consideration of P200.00 during a legitimate buy-bust
all the issues and arguments filed before the CA to avoid
operation; that the marijuana fruiting tops wrapped in printed
repetition of the same.
paper and marked with “BTM” and “JOB,” which was
Appellant argues that the integrity of the drug
presented in court, was the same specimen brought by PO2
presented in court is doubtful because of the apparent
Manglalan during the buy-bust operation. The CA found that
noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; the
the prosecution was able to prove the chain of custody of the
non-presentation of the investigator to testify on how he
confiscated marijuana. PO2 Manglalan and SPO1 Tabigue
preserved the evidence transferred to him; and, the non-
marked the seized item with “BTM” and “JOB,” respectively;
presentation of the forensic chemist or the receiving
SPO1 Tabigue took custody of the seized item and brought it
police officer at the crime laboratory.
to the police station where he turned it over to PO3 Gabisan,
We find merit in the appeal.
who prepared the request for laboratory examination; that PO2
In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous
Manglalan delivered the seized item to the crime laboratory
drugs, the following elements must first be established:
for examination; and, that PCI Gucor examined the confiscated
(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place, and (2)
the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/26
7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897
38
illicit drug as evidence. The existence of corpus delicti manner:
is essential to a judgment of conviction.39 Hence, the  
identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly (1)  The apprehending team having initial
established. custody and control of the drugs shall,
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides for the procedural immediately after seizure and confiscation,
safeguards in the handling of seized drugs by the apprehending physically inventory and photograph the same in
officer/team, to wit: the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or
Section  21.  Custody and Disposition of seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous representative from the media and the
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, public official who shall be required to sign the
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory copies of the inventory and be given a copy
Equipment.—The PDEA shall take charge and have thereof. x x x
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources or
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential  
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or To properly guide law enforcement agents as to the
labora- proper handling of confiscated drugs, Section 21(a),
Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
_______________ (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 filled in the details as to where
the inventory and photographing of seized items had to
38 People v. Battung, G.R. No. 230717, June 20, 2018, 867 SCRA be done, and added a saving clause in case the
438, citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228; 616 SCRA 223, 235 procedure is not followed:40
(2010).  
39 Id., citing People v. Jaafar, G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017, (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial
815 SCRA 19, 28. 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
152 whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official
People vs. Duran who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,
tory equipment so confiscated, seized and or That the physical inventory and photograph shall
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following be conducted at the place where the search

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/26

7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897

warrant is served; or at the nearest police station integrity of the evidence acquired and prevent planting of
or at the nearest office of the apprehending offi- evidence, the application of said Section resulted in the
ineffectiveness of the government’s campaign to stop the
_______________ increasing drug addiction and also, in the conflicting decisions
of the courts.”43  Senator Poe stressed the necessity for the
40  Id., citing People v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 225690, January 17, amendment of Section 21 based on the public hearing that the
2018, 852 SCRA 85. Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs had
conducted, which revealed that “compliance with the rule on
  witnesses during the physical inventory is difficult.” For one,
  media representatives are not always available in all corners of
153 the Philippines, 

_______________
VOL. 897, MARCH 13, 2019 153
People vs. Duran 41 Emphasis supplied.
42 An Act to Further Strengthen the Antidrug Campaign of the
Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act
cer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the ‘Comprehensive Dangerous
warrantless seizures; Provided, further, That
Drugs Act of 2002’.
noncompliance with these requirements under
43 People v. Battung, supra note 38, citing Senate Journal, Session
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
No. 80, 16th Congress, 1st Regular Session, June 4, 2014, p. 348.
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall  
not render void and invalid such seizures of and  
custody over said items.41
154
 
R.A. No. 10640,42 which amended Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165, incorporated the saving clause contained in the IRR, and 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
requires only two (2) witnesses to be present during the People vs. Duran
conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of
the seized items, namely: (a) an elected public official; and (b) especially in the remote areas. For another there were
either a representative from the National Prosecution Service instances where elected  barangay  officials themselves were
or the media. involved in the punishable acts apprehended.44
In her Sponsorship Speech on Senate Bill No. 2273, which In his Co-sponsorship speech, Senator Vicente C. Sotto III
eventually became R.A. No. 10640, Senator Grace Poe said that in view of a substantial number of acquittals in drug-
conceded that “while Section 21 was enshrined in the related cases due to the varying interpretations of prosecutors
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act to safeguard the and judges on Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, there is a need for
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/26
7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897

“certain adjustments so that we can plug the loopholes in our VOL. 897, MARCH 13, 2019 155
existing law” and “ensure [its] standard
People vs. Duran
implementation.”45  Senator Sotto explained why the said
provision should be amended:
It is proposed that the physical inventory and taking
Numerous drug trafficking activities can be traced to of photographs of seized illegal drugs be allowed to be
operations of highly organized and powerful local and conducted either in the place of seizure of illegal drugs
international syndicates. The presence of such or at the nearest police station or office of the
syndicates that have the resources and the capability to apprehending law enforcers. The proposal will provide
mount a counter-assault to apprehending law enforcers effective measures to ensure the integrity of seized
makes the requirement of Section 21(a) impracticable illegal drugs since a safe location makes it more
for law enforcers to comply with. It makes the place of probable for an inventory and photograph of seized
seizure extremely unsafe for the proper inventory and illegal drugs to be properly conducted, thereby reducing
photograph of the seized illegal drugs. the incidents of dismissal of drug cases due to
x x x x technicalities.
Section 21(a) of RA 9165 need to be amended to Nonobservance of the prescribed procedures should
address the foregoing situation. We did not realize this not automatically mean that the seizure or confiscation
in 2002 where the safety of the law enforcers and other is invalid or illegal, as long as the law enforcement
persons required to be present in the inventory and officers could justify the same and could prove that the
photography of seized illegal drugs and the preservation integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
of the very existence of seized illegal drugs itself are are not tainted. This is the effect of the inclusion in the
threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of drug proposal to amend the phrase “justifiable grounds.”
syndicates at the place of seizure. The place where the There are instances where there are no media people or
seized drugs may be inventoried and photographed has representatives from the DOJ available and the absence
to include a location where the seized drugs as well as of these witnesses should not automatically invalidate
the persons who are required to be present during the the drug operation conducted. Even the presence of a
inventory and photograph are safe and secure from public local elected official also is sometimes
extreme danger. impossible especially if the elected official is afraid or
scared.46
_______________
 
44 Id.
Considering that the crime charged was committed by
45 Id.
appellant on December 6, 2013, it is the original provision of
Section 21 and its IRR, which is applicable. It is provided that
  the apprehending team was required to immediately conduct a
  physical inventory and photograph the drugs after their seizure
and confiscation in the presence of no less than three (3)
155
witnesses, namely: (a) a representative from the media, and (b)
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/26
7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897

the DOJ; and (c) any elected public official who shall be Consequently, the veracity of the certificate of inventory
required to sign copies of the inventory and be given copy becomes questionable.
thereof. The presence of the three (3) witnesses was intended It bears stressing that while it was shown that the
as a guarantee against planting of evidence and frame-up, as Barangay Captain was present during the marking and
they were “necessary to insulate the apprehension and in- inventory of the seized item, the other witnesses
required under Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, i.e.,
_______________ representatives from media and the DOJ, were not
present. Although the failure of the apprehending team
46 Id. to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto
 
render the seizure and custody over the items as void
 
and invalid, the prosecution must satisfactorily prove
156 that: (a) there is justifiable ground for noncompliance,
and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved. Here, the prosecution did
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED not provide any plausible explanation or justification on
People vs. Duran why the presence of the representatives from media and
DOJ was not secured. The justifiable ground for
crimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy noncompliance must be proven as a
or irregularity.”  
In this case, it was established by the testimonies of  
PO2 Manglalan and SPO1 Tabigue that they marked the 157
seized item in the presence of the appellant and
Barangay Captain Catungal at the crime scene and that
photographs were taken of the same. Their testimonies VOL. 897, MARCH 13, 2019 157
also showed that the seized item was only inventoried at People vs. Duran
the police station and the certificate of inventory was
signed by Barangay Captain Catungal and that
fact, because the Court cannot presume what these
photographs of the same were taken. We note, however,
grounds are or that they even exist.47
that aside from the signature of the barangay captain
In  People v. Angelita Reyes, et al.,48  this Court
appearing on the certificate of inventory, there were
enumerated certain instances where the absence of the required
names and signatures of alleged media and DOJ
witnesses may be justified, thus:
representatives appearing on the spaces provided for
such, notwithstanding that nowhere in the testimonies of x  x  x It must be emphasized that the prosecution
the police officers that they mentioned of any media and must be able to prove a justifiable ground in omitting
DOJ representatives present during the inventory and certain requirements provided in Sec. 21 such as, but
the photographing of the item seized from appellant. not limited to the following: 1) media representatives
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/26
7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897

are not available at that time or that the police 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
operatives had no time to alert the media due to the
People vs. Duran
immediacy of the operation they were about to
undertake, especially if it is done in more remote areas;
2) the police operatives, with the same reason, failed to We reiterated the above mentioned ruling in People
find an available representative of the National v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro,50 thus:
Prosecution Service; 3) the police officers, due to time The prosecution never alleged and proved that the
constraints brought about by the urgency of the presence of the required witnesses was not obtained for
operation to be undertaken and in order to comply with any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their
the provisions of Article 12549  of the Revised Penal attendance was impossible because the place of arrest
Code in the timely delivery of prisoners, were not able was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory
to comply with all the requisites set forth in Section 21 and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by
of R.A. 9165. an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any
person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected
_______________ official themselves were involved in the punishable acts
sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure
47 People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649; 616 SCRA 652, 662
the presence of a DOJ or media representative and
(2010).
elected public official within the period required under
48 G.R. No. 219953, April 23, 2018, 862 SCRA 352.
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Could prove futile
49 Article  125.  Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the
through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the
proper judicial authorities.—The penalties provided in the next
threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5)
preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee
time constraints and urgency of the antidrug operations,
who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to
which often rely on tips of confidential assets,
deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period
prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the
of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light
presence of the required witnesses even before the
penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or
offenders could escape.
offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and
thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or  
capital penalties, or their equivalent. In every case, the person detained The unjustified noncompliance by the police officers of the
shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed required procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its
upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his IRR resulted in a substantial gap in the chain of custody of the
attorney or counsel. (As amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, Nov. 7, seized item from appellant which put the integrity and
1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively) evidentiary value of the seized item in question. Resultantly,
the appellant must be acquitted of the crime charged.
 
WHEREFORE, the appeal is  GRANTED. The Decision
 
dated June 8, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-
158 H.C. No. 01523 is hereby  REVERSED  and  SET ASIDE.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/26

7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897 7/27/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 897

Appellant Roben D. Duran is, accordingly, ACQUITTED for To ascertain that the illegal drugs presented in court are the
failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable ones actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must
doubt. The Penal Superintendent of the Davao Prison and show that: (a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1),
Penal Farm is ORDERED to immediately cause the release of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 has been complied
appellant from detention, unless he is being held for some  with or falls within the saving clause provided in Section
21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
_______________ (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) there was an unbroken link in
the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated items.
50 G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, 866 SCRA 73. (People vs. Endaya, 731 SCRA 1 [2014])

   
  ——o0o——

159
_______________

VOL. 897, MARCH 13, 2019 159 ***** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2624
dated November 28, 2018.
People vs. Duran

other lawful cause, and to inform this Court his action

hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this
Decision.
SO ORDERED.
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
Leonen, A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando and
Carandang,***** JJ., concur.

Appeal granted, judgment reversed and set aside. Appellant

Roben D. Duran acquitted and ordered immediately released.

Notes.—Although the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that

noncompliance with the directives of Section 21, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s
case, the prosecution must still prove that (a) there is a
justifiable ground for the noncompliance, and (b) the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly
preserved. (Valencia vs. People, 714 SCRA 492 [2014])

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 25/26 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017ae829147df3465883000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 26/26