NOT AUTOMATICALLY RENDER ILLEGAL THE ARREST OF AN ACCUSED OR INADMISSIBLE THE ITEMS SEIZED People of the Philippines vs Ros G.R. No. 201145; April 15, 2015 Peralta, J. FACTS: In a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, appellants assail the Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the Decision of the RTC, convicting David Navarro (Navarro), Michael Ros (Ros), and Rodolfo Justo Jr. (Justo) for illegal sale of marijuana in violation of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Appellants Navarro, Ros and Justo sold and delivered marijuana to police poseur-buyers. After the police officers made sure that the package was indeed marijuana, they announced their authority and arrested herein appellants. The arresting officers brought the packages of marijuana to the crime laboratory for laboratory examination Appellants argue that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody of the alleged seized marijuana which is a violation of Section 21 of RA 9165. The said section provides for the method by which the law enforcement is to handle the corpus delicti at the time of seizure and confiscation of the dangerous drugs. It states that immediately after the seizure and confiscation of the drugs, there should be a physical inventory and the seized drugs should be photographed 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. ISSUE: Should there be a strict compliance of the method provided in Section 21 of RA 9165? RULING: No, non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. In the present case, the records show that there had been substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure, preserving, in
effect, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana.
The body of evidence supports the conclusion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence were preserved and safeguarded through an unbroken chain of custody - from the arresting officers, to the investigating officers, and then to the forensic chemist. The records also show on the same day of the arrest, the arresting officers personally delivered the seized drugs to the crime laboratory office. Furthermore, the appellants failed to present evidence to substantiate their claim that the integrity and evidentiary value of the marijuana as evidence had been compromised at some point. Hence, strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not required.