PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

VS. REY BARRION Y SILVA

Facts

Rey Silva charged of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. Anti-illegal Drugs
Task Force perform buy bust operation against Barrion and one plastic sachet of white
crystalline powder was captured. The police put seized item in a bigger plastic marked it
and inventoried by DOJ representative and a barangay councilor. The confiscated item
was clinically examined and tested positive as shabu. Barrion denied the charges
against him that the police blocked tricycle while inside and was already detained at the
police headquarters . And police testimonies were not true.

YES. The appeal is meritorious. In ascertaining the identity

of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia presented in
court as the ones actually seized from the accused, the
prosecution must show that: 
(a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article
II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied with or falls within
the saving clause provided in Section 21(a), Article II of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A.
No. 9165; and 
(b) there was an unbroken link (not perfect link) in the
chain of custody with respect to the confiscated items.

In this case, there was a deviation from the witness

requirement as the conduct of the inventory and photography
was not witnessed by a media representative. This may be
gleaned from the Inventory of Confiscated/Seized Items which
only shows the presence of Limbo, a DOJ representative, and
Reyes, an elected public official, i.e., a barangay councilor. 
This provision is elaborated on under Section 21(a) of the IRR
which provides a saving clause in case the prescribed
procedure is not complied with. Under this saving
clause, 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. 
t is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for these
witnesses' absence by presenting a justifiable reason
therefor or, at the very least, by showing that genuine and
sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers
to secure their presence. 
Here, while SPO1 Umali acknowledged the absence of a
media representative during the conduct of inventory, he
failed to offer any reasonable justification for the same.
Mere statements claiming that they tried to call the media
representative, without, however, showing that they
exerted earnest efforts to secure his presence, are
insufficient to trigger the operation of the saving clause.
In view of this unjustified deviation from the chain of
custody rule, the Court is therefore constrained to
conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
item purportedly seized from Barrion was compromised,
which consequently warrants his acquittal.

Rey Barrion y Silva is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.