In drug-related offenses, the integrity of the evidence is paramount. The Supreme Court in People v. Xandra Santos emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule. The Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to adequately justify the absence of required witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized drugs, thus compromising the integrity of the corpus delicti. This ruling underscores that unsubstantiated claims of unavailability of witnesses are insufficient grounds for non-compliance, reinforcing the need for law enforcement to exert genuine efforts in securing their presence to ensure transparency and accountability.

Failing Witnesses: When a Buy-Bust Goes Bust

This case revolves around the arrest and subsequent conviction of Xandra Santos for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution presented evidence from a buy-bust operation, but critical procedural lapses in the handling of evidence led to a Supreme Court review. The central legal question is whether the prosecution adequately demonstrated compliance with the chain of custody rule, especially concerning the required witnesses during post-seizure procedures.

The case began with Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) charging Xandra Santos with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” The prosecution alleged that Santos was caught in a buy-bust operation selling and possessing shabu. After her arrest, the seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the police station in the presence of a barangay official, but without the presence of representatives from the media or the National Prosecution Service (NPS). The RTC found Santos guilty, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, Santos appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the chain of custody was not properly established.

The Supreme Court emphasized the vital role of the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. This rule ensures that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs are maintained from the moment of confiscation to their presentation in court. The Court reiterated that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti, and any failure to prove its integrity creates reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody.

According to the law, marking, physical inventory, and photography of seized items must be conducted immediately after seizure. While marking at the nearest police station is acceptable, the inventory and photography must be done in the presence of the accused and certain required witnesses. Prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, these witnesses included a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as any elected public official. After the amendment, the requirement shifted to an elected public official and a representative of the NPS or the media. These witnesses serve to ensure transparency and prevent any suspicion of evidence tampering.

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible due to varying field conditions. However, the prosecution must then provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance and demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The saving clause in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, allows for non-compliance if these conditions are met. The Supreme Court emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, and cannot be presumed.

Regarding the witness requirement, the Court clarified that non-compliance is only permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, even if they ultimately failed to appear. Mere statements of unavailability, without actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are insufficient justification for non-compliance. The Court in People v. Lim, explained that the absence of the required witnesses must be justified based on acceptable reasons, such as:

“(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by 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 the presence of a DOJ [and] media representative[s] and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.”

In this case, the arresting officers explained that the marking, inventory, and photography were conducted at the police station due to a growing crowd at the arrest site. However, the Court noted that the inventory and photography were not witnessed by a representative from the NPS or the media. The poseur-buyer, Police Officer 3 Allan T. Vizconde (PO3 Vizconde), admitted that despite efforts to contact representatives from the DOJ and the media, no one was available.

The Supreme Court found this explanation unacceptable. The mere statement that representatives from the DOJ and the media were contacted but unavailable was deemed insufficient to justify the deviation from the mandatory directives of the law. The Court emphasized that without a showing of actual and serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, the prosecution failed to demonstrate genuine and sufficient efforts. As a result, the Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been compromised, leading to Xandra Santos’s acquittal.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately complied with the chain of custody rule, particularly regarding the required witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized drugs. The Supreme Court found the prosecution’s explanation for the absence of these witnesses insufficient.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule ensures that the integrity and identity of evidence are maintained from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It involves documenting the handling of evidence to prevent tampering or substitution.
Who are the required witnesses for inventory and photography of seized drugs?	Prior to RA 10640 amendment, the required witnesses were representatives from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. After the amendment, the requirement became an elected public official and a representative of the NPS or the media.
What happens if the chain of custody is not strictly followed?	If the chain of custody is not strictly followed, the prosecution must provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance and demonstrate that the integrity of the evidence was preserved. Failure to do so can result in the evidence being deemed inadmissible.
What is considered a justifiable ground for non-compliance with the witness requirement?	Acceptable justifications include the impossibility of attendance due to a remote location, safety threats, involvement of the elected official in the crime, or futile earnest efforts to secure the witnesses’ presence. Mere unavailability is not sufficient.
What is the significance of the saving clause in RA 9165?	The saving clause allows for non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements if the prosecution can prove justifiable grounds and demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. However, this requires a factual basis, not mere presumption.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Xandra Santos, finding that the prosecution failed to adequately justify the absence of required witnesses during the inventory and photography of the seized drugs, thus compromising the integrity of the evidence.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	The ruling emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with the chain of custody rule in drug cases and reinforces the need for law enforcement to exert genuine efforts in securing the presence of required witnesses to ensure transparency and accountability.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Xandra Santos serves as a critical reminder of the importance of meticulously following the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases. Law enforcement agencies must ensure that all procedural requirements are met, particularly concerning the presence of required witnesses, to safeguard the integrity of evidence and uphold the rights of the accused. This case reinforces the principle that unsubstantiated claims of unavailability are insufficient grounds for non-compliance, thereby highlighting the need for genuine and documented efforts to secure witness participation.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. XANDRA SANTOS, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019