Topic: Evidence; chain of custody

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. BENJAMIN FERIOL

G.R. No. 232154, August 20, 2018, J. Perlas-Bernabe
“strict compliance with Sec. 21 may be excused when in the instance of warrantless seizure, inventory
and photography may be done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, under
justifiable grounds, so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer or team.”
Facts: Acting on information provided by a confidential informant that a certain “Allan” later
identified as Feriol was engaged in illegal drug activities, Makati City Police conducted a buy-bust
operation. Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) Operative Delno Encarnacion acted as poseur-
buyer, and PO1 Mark Anthony Angulo acted as immediate back-up. Due to security reasons, the buy
bust team brought Feriod and the seized items to the barangay hall after the consummation of the
sale, where the required inventory and photography were conducted in the presence of Feriod and
Barangay Kagawad Bien. Feriol and the seized items were then turned over to the SPO1 Esperanzate
who prepared the letter request for laboratory examination. The letter request and the plastic sachet
were given to MADAC Encarnacion, who delivered it to the crime laboratory for examination, during
which it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Feriol was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II, of RA 9165.
On November 27, 2014, the RTC convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment and
fined him P500,000. It ruled that the apprehending officers’ failure to secure the representatives from
the DOJ and media during the conduct of the inventory did not render Feriol’s arrest void and the
evidence obtained from him inadmissible since it was proved that the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items were duly preserved. This decision was affirmed in toto by the CA, which
found that the chain of custody was not broken from the time of seizure of the drug by the
apprehending officers until the time it was introduced in evidence. It further ruled that Feriol had the
burden of proving that the seized item was tainted, which he failed to do.
Issue: Whether or not the conviction should be upheld.
Ruling: No.
In order to sustain a conviction of a charge under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the prosecution
must prove the following elements with moral certainty: a) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object, and the consideration; and b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The identity
of the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. The prosecution
must show an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drug to avoid unnecessary doubts on
their integrity.
Sec. 21, Art. II, of RA 9165 provides that the apprehending team shall immediately after
seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the
presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representatives or
counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the seized drugs
must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from confiscation for examination.
However, strict compliance with Sec. 21 may be excused when in the instance of warrantless seizure,
inventory and photography may be done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
team, under justifiable grounds, so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. The prosecution must explain the reasons
behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had
been preserved. The justifiable ground is not presumed, and must be proven as a fact.
In this case, while the inventory and photography of the seized items were made in the
presence of Feriol and an elected public official, they were not done before any representative from
the DOJ and the media, and this was not explained by the apprehending officers nor was it shown
that they attempted to contact or secure these witnesses’ presence. The procedure in Sec. 21 is a
matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality.