G.R. No. 193385, December 1, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. DATSGANDAWALI y GAPAS and NOL PAGALAD y ANAS, Accused-Appellants.
vs. DATSGANDAWALI y GAPAS and NOL PAGALAD y ANAS, Accused-Appellants.
"x x x.
The integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug seized from appellants were duly proven by the prosecution to have been properly preserved; its identity, quantity and quality remained untarnished.
Appellants persistently argue that the prosecution failed to establish with moral certainty the identity of the substance seized and the preservation of its integrity. They assert that the apprehending officers failed to observe the procedures for the custody and disposition of the seized drug as laid down in Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165, particularly the conduct of physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized item.
The Court finds appellants’ contentions unconvincing.
Section 21(1),17 Article II of RA 9165 clearly outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. The law mandates that the officer taking initial custody of the drug shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct the physical inventory of the same and take a photograph thereof 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. The explicit directive of the above statutory provision notwithstanding, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the said law provide a saving clause whenever the procedures laid down in the law are not strictly complied with, to wit:
x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance 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 not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.18
Thus, gleaned from a plain reading of the implementing rules, the most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt orinnocence of the accused.19 As long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved, strict compliance of the requisites under Section 21 of RA 9165 may be disregarded.20
In this case, while it was admitted by PO1 Sarangaya that no physical inventory of the seized item was madeand no photograph thereof was taken as mandated by law, and also while the reason given for such failure appears to be unsatisfactory, i.e., PO1 Sarangaya was not familiar with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 since the said law was just then newly implemented,21 it was nonetheless shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item had been preserved and kept intact. The crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized drug subject matter of the case, from the time Gandawali handed it to the poseurbuyer up to its presentation as evidence in court, were duly accounted for and shown to have not been broken.
x x x."
