March 5, 2018

G.R. No. 202206

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
TENG MONER y ADAM, Accused-Appellant

D E C I S I O N

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Teng Moner was convicted by the trial court of illegal sale ofdangerous drugs (3.91
grams). To establish his guilt, theprosecution presented three (3) witnesses
namely: P02Joachim Panopio, P03 Junnifer Tuldanes and PO3 Edwin Lirio.The
prosecution's evidence tends to establish the facts of thepreparation, coordination
and buy-bust operation, arrest ofMonera and taking into custody of the dangerous
drugs.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court.Hence, Monera
elevated the case before the Supreme Courtand argued among others that the
arresting officers failed tocomply with the statutorily mandated procedure for
thehandling and custody of the dangerous drugs allegedly seizedfrom him.Moner
asserts that he should be acquitted of the criminalcharges levelled against him
specifically because of thefollowing serious lapses in procedure committed by
theapprehending officers: (a) the physical inventory was notconducted at the place
where the seizure was made; (b) theseized item was not photographed at the place of
seizure; and(c) there was no physical inventory and photograph of theseized item in
the presence of the accused, or hisrepresentative or counsel, with an elected
public official and arepresentative of the National Prosecution Service or themedia
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventoryand be given a copy
thereof.

He also maintained that the prosecution failed to discharge itsburden of proof,

failed to present in court the informant whopointed him as supplier of shabu and
that the operation wasconducted without proper coordination with PDEA. He
alsopointed out that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesseswere inconsistent,
incredible and unworthy of belief.

Issue: W/N noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21of Republic Act No.
9165 will render the illegal drugs seized orconfiscated in a buy-bust operation
inadmissible as evidence, a compliance with the excluionary rule.

Held: No. With regard to the foregoing, Moner asserts that he should be acquitted
of the criminal charges levelled against him specifically because of the following
serious lapses in procedure committed by the apprehending officers: (a) the
physical inventory was not conducted at the place where the seizure was made; (b)
the seized item was not photographed at the place of seizure; and (c) there was no
physical inventory and photograph of the seized item in the presence of the
accused, or his representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

Verily, the circumstances that the buy-bust team proceeded first to the Central
Police District (CPD) Station, Camp Karingal in Quezon City and, from there, they
were accompanied by a police officer from the CPD to the target location, aside
from proving that it was a legitimate police operation, supported the existence of
a security risk to the buy-bust team. These additional precautions taken by the
buy-bust team underscored their unfamiliarity with the location of the operation
and, in fact, corroborated the above-quoted testimony that the buy-bust team
believed there was a threat to their security.

With regard to the accused�s allegation that the buy-bust team failed to coordinate
with the PDEA before proceeding with the operation that nabbed Moner, both the
trial court and the Court of Appeals declare in unison that the requisite prior
coordination with PDEA did happen. Likewise, our own review did not provide any
reason for us to disbelieve said established fact.

To reiterate, noncompliance with the chain of custody rule is excusable as long as

there exist justifiable grounds which prevented those tasked to follow the same
from strictly conforming to the said directive. The preceding discussion clearly
show that the apprehending officers in this case did not totally disregard
prescribed procedure but, instead, demonstrated substantial compliance with what
was required. It was likewise explained that the divergence in procedure was not
arbitrary or whimsical but because the buy-bust team decided that they could not
linger at the crime scene as it would unduly expose them to security risks since
they were outside their area of responsibility.

This is not the first time that this Court has been confronted with the question of
whether or not to uphold the conviction of a person arrested for the illegal sale
of dangerous drugs who had been positively identified by credible witnesses as the
perpetrator of said crime but the manner by which the evidence of illegal drugs was
handled did not strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. To reiterate past
pronouncements, while ideally the procedure on the chain of custody should be
perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is not as it is almost always impossible to
obtain an unbroken chain.24 Unfortunately; rigid obedience to procedure creates a
scenario wherein the safeguards that we set to shield the innocent are likewise
exploited by the guilty to escape rightful punishment. Realizing the inconvenient
truth that no perfect chain of custody can ever be achieved, this Court has
consistently held that the most important factor in the chain of custody rule is
the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.25

We find it apropos to highlight this Court's discussion in Zalameda v. People, 26

which was restated in the recent case of Saraum v. People

We would like to add that noncompliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly
the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or
seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule
128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible,
there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law
or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that
will accorded it by the court x x x.

We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will
bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to
noncompliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if
there is noncompliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight -
evidentiary merit or probative value - to be given the evidence. The weight to be
given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each
case.

Stated differently, if the evidence of illegal drugs was not handled precisely in
the manner prescribed by the chain of custody rule, the consequence relates not to
inadmissibility that would automatically destroy the prosecution's case but rather
to the weight of evidence presented for each particular case. In the case at bar,
the trial court judge convicted Moner on the strength of the credibility of the
prosecution's witnesses despite an imperfect chain of custody concerning the corpus
delicti.