NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF THE

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 DOES

NOT AUTOMATICALLY RENDER ILLEGAL THE ARREST OF AN
ACCUSED OR INADMISSIBLE THE ITEMS SEIZED
People of the Philippines vs Ros
G.R. No. 201145; April 15, 2015
Peralta, J.
FACTS:
In a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, appellants assail
the Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the Decision of
the RTC, convicting David Navarro (Navarro), Michael Ros (Ros), and
Rodolfo Justo Jr. (Justo) for illegal sale of marijuana in violation of RA
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Appellants Navarro, Ros and Justo sold and delivered marijuana to
police poseur-buyers. After the police officers made sure that the
package was indeed marijuana, they announced their authority and
arrested herein appellants. The arresting officers brought the
packages of marijuana to the crime laboratory for laboratory
examination
Appellants argue that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of
custody of the alleged seized marijuana which is a violation of
Section 21 of RA 9165. The said section provides for the method by
which the law enforcement is to handle the corpus delicti at the
time of seizure and confiscation of the dangerous drugs. It states
that immediately after the seizure and confiscation of the drugs,
there should be a physical inventory and the seized drugs should be
photographed in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory.
ISSUE:
Should there be a strict compliance of the method provided in
Section 21 of RA 9165?
RULING:
No, non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over
said items.
In the present case, the records show that there had been
substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure, preserving, in

effect, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana.

The body of evidence supports the conclusion that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized evidence were preserved and
safeguarded through an unbroken chain of custody - from the
arresting officers, to the investigating officers, and then to the
forensic chemist. The records also show on the same day of the
arrest, the arresting officers personally delivered the seized drugs to
the crime laboratory office. Furthermore, the appellants failed to
present evidence to substantiate their claim that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the marijuana as evidence had been
compromised at some point.
Hence, strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not required.