People v.

Addin
GR No. 223682, 9 October, 2019 | Hernando, J.

Facts

An Information for illegal sale was filed against Onni Addin pursuant to Section 5, Article II of
R.A 1965.

As alleged by the prosecution, a buy-bust operation with PO2 Diomampo as poseur-buyer was
planned upon information that Addin had been selling drugs at Barangay Culiat, Quezon City. A
Pre-Operation Report was prepared and a Coordination Form was sent to PDEA prior to the
team’s dispatch. As the operation commenced, the informant approached Addin, introduced PO2
Diomampo, and told him that the latter wanted to buy Php 500 worth of shabu. When the sale
was consummated, PO2 Diomampo sent the pre-arranged signal, and police operatives rushed to
the area. Addin tried to escape but was apprehended by PO2 Santiago who was coming from the
opposite direction. Upon arrest, Addin was informed of his offenses and constitutional rights.
The team immediately vacated the area due to previous shoot-out incidents of police officers.

Upon arrival at the police station, the seized item was turned over. Thereafter, the inventory of
seized items was prepared and photographs of the same were taken. It was witnessed by Addin’s
relatives and a media representative. The forensic chemist in charge later confirmed upon
examination that the seized item contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

In his counter-affidavit, Addin denied such allegations and claimed that there was no buy-bust
operation at the moment. He stated that he was buying at a sari-sari store when he saw police
officers in pursuit of a man. When the arrest failed, the officers arrested him and showed him the
illegal drugs. He averred that he was not involved in illegal drug activities but was engaged in
the business of vegetables and operating videoke outlets.

The RTC rendered a decision finding Addin guilty as charged. It noted that the seized dangerous
drug was properly handled and stored in the PNP Crime laboratory. It found that the prosecution
witnesses were credible and that the police properly informed and coordinated with the PDEA
about the operation. It also noted that while the inventory of the seized items was not done at the
crime scene, the same was justifiable since the area was dangerous and no search warrant was
involved. The inventory was also made in Camp Karingal which was near the area and on the
same day of the operation. The same was witnessed by Addin, his relatives, and a media
representative.

The CA affirmed the decision of RTC, noting that the chain of custody was not broken as the
evidence confiscated at the time of the operation was the same one tested, introduced, and
testified to. Hence, the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
Issues

1. Whether the chain of custody of evidence was broken.

Held

1. Yes. Section 21 of RA 9165 mandates that the marking, photographing, and inventory of
the seized items be done in the presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ,
and any elected public official. In the present case, however, the police only managed to
secure the presence and signature of a representative from the media to serve as an
additional witness. No explanation was provided why the presence of a representative
from the DOJ and any elected public official was not secured.

Ratio

[1] It should be reiterated that in the event that the presence of the essential witnesses was
not obtained, the prosecution must establish not only the reasons for their absence but
also the fact that serious and sincere efforts were exerted in securing their presence.
Failure to do so results in a substantial gap in the chain of custody of evidence that shall
adversely affect the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented in the court.

● In Ramos v. People, the Court held that:

“[I]t is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se
render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such
failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required
witnesses under Section 21 of RA [No.] 9165 must be adduced…As such, police
officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance but must
in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with
the mandated procedure and that under the given circumstances, their actions
were reasonable.”

Application

In the case at hand, the prosecution failed to allege at least and then prove any specific reason to
explain the absence of the representative from the DOJ and any elected public official present
during the inventory and photographs. There was no attempt at all to justify the absence of these
witnesses, especially given that they had sufficient time to plan the buy-bust operation even if it
was conducted at night time. Undoubtedly, while planning, they could have exerted efforts to
request the attendance of the required witnesses during the inventory. If nobody was available,
the police officers could have adequately explained it on paper or even during the trial of the
case. Relevantly, this lapse casts doubt upon the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
item and gives rise to the probability that the integrity of the seized item might have been
compromised while under police custody.