FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249108. May 3, 2021.]
ELIEZER MERCADO y ENCENA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 3, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249108 (Eliezer Mercado y Encena v. People of the Philippines). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated May 27, 2019 and the Resolution 3 dated August 23, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 41485, which affirmed the Judgment 4 dated February 13, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santa Cruz, Laguna, Branch 27, convicting Eliezer Mercado y Encena (Mercado) of violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Facts of the Case
Mercado was charged with violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. 9165 in separate Informations as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. SC-16718
That on or about the 23rd day of July 2013, at Barangay Pinagbayanan, Municipality of Pila, Province of Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully [sic], unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, weighing a total of 0.02 gram and one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of dried marijuana leaves, also a dangerous drug, weighing 1.52 grams. 5
CRIMINAL CASE NO. SC-16719
That on or about the 23rd day of July 2013, at Barangay Pinagbayanan, Municipality of Pila, Province of Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully [sic], unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) open ended plastic sachet with traces of methamphetamine hydrochloride and fifteen (15) pieces of crumpled aluminum foil strips used in ingesting or smoking dangerous drugs that gave positive results to the test for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug. 6
When arraigned, Mercado pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged against him. 7 During pre-trial conference, the following were stipulated: (1) the RTC's jurisdiction over the case; and (2) Mercado's identity as the same person arraigned for the present cases. The prosecution and the defense agreed to dispense with the testimony of forensic chemist Police Chief Inspector Grace Plantilla Bombasi (PCI Bombasi) based on the following stipulations: (1) the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. LD-405-13, and the truthfulness of the contents thereof; (2) she was not present during Mercado's arrest; (3) she has no personal knowledge whether there were illegal drugs and paraphernalia recovered from Mercado during his arrest; and (4) she has no personal knowledge as regards the origin of the specimen she examined. 8
Trial on the merits then ensued. 9
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented: (i) PO1 Alberto Mangue (PO1 Mangue); and (ii) PO2 Bayani Lames, Jr. (PO2 Lames). On the other hand, Mercado testified on his own behalf. 10 CAIHTE
The prosecution's evidence established that at 6:45 p.m. of July 23, 2013, PSI Lydelfo Rajil (PSI Rajil) briefed a search team composed of PO1 Mangue, PO2 Lames, PSI Marcelito Marcial (PSI Marcial), SPO1 Antonio Dorado (SPO1 Dorado), PO2 Diosdado Pasion (PO2 Pasion), and PO2 Elbert Santos (PO2 Santos) at the Municipal Police Station in Pila, Laguna. After the briefing at 7:00 p.m., the search team together with Dick Garay (Garay), a media representative, proceeded to Mercado's house in Forest Park Subdivision, Barangay (Brgy.) Pinagbayanan, Pila, Laguna, for the implementation of Search Warrant (SW) No. 13-525. 11
The search team then coordinated with Brgy. Chairman Zoilo Dawinan (Brgy. Chairman Dawinan) when they arrived at the subject area. At 7:30 p.m., the search team — along with Brgy. Chairman Dawinan and Garay — went to Mercado's house to implement the search warrant. However, only Soledad — Mercado's wife — was there and she let the search team go inside their 2-storey house. PO1 Mangue and PO2 Lames searched the house in the presence of Soledad, Garay, Brgy. Chairman Dawinan and found underneath Mercado's bed: (i) one plastic sachet of shabu; (ii) one plastic sachet of marijuana; (iii) 15 pieces of crumpled aluminum foil with shabu residue; (iv) one plastic sachet with shabu residue; and (v) one plastic container. PO1 Mangue immediately marked these items, prepared an inventory, and placed them inside the seized plastic container. 12
From Mercado's house, the search team went back to the police station with PO1 Mangue in possession of the seized items. PO1 Mangue then turned over the seized evidence to investigating officer SPO1 Dorado. SPO1 Dorado prepared the request for laboratory examination and placed the seized items in a plastic container. PO1 Mangue took back the seized evidence and brought them along with the letter request to the crime laboratory for examination. 13
PO1 Mangue handed over the seized items and the request for laboratory examination to PCI Bombasi. Chemistry Report No. LD-405-13 revealed that: (i) the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked "EM-1" containing 0.02 grams of white crystalline substance, the 15 crumpled aluminum foil strips marked "EM-3"; and the open-end transparent plastic sachet marked "EM-4" all tested positive for the presence of Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug; and (ii) the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked "EM-2" containing 1.52 grams of suspected dried marijuana tested positive for the presence of Marijuana, a dangerous drug. 14
Version of the Defense
For his defense, Mercado denied the charges and shared that he went home the day following the search of his house. His wife told him that she and her children were outside their house while the search was being conducted and that police officers brought out empty sachets and aluminum foil when the search was done. 15
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
Mercado was found guilty of the offenses charged. For violation of Section 11 of Article II of R.A. 9165, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum, and to pay a P300,000.00 fine. For violation of Section 12 of Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, he was adjudged to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day as minimum to one (1) year as maximum, and to pay a P10,000.00 fine. 16
The RTC ruled that SW No. 13-525 was validly implemented even if Mercado was not present pursuant to Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The RTC noted that Soledad, Dawinan, and Garay signed the Certificate of Good Conduct of Lawful Search. In addition, no evidence was presented to substantiate Mercado's defenses of denial and frame-up to overcome the presumption of regularity. 17
The RTC declared that the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia were sufficiently established. Mercado had constructive possession since he had dominion or control of the contraband and his bedroom where they were found. The RTC concluded that the chain of custody and compliance requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 were complied with. 18
Aggrieved, Mercado appealed the Decision of the RTC with the CA. In his Brief, 19 Mercado alleged that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the drugs allegedly recovered from his house. Mercado stressed the following lapses and glaring gaps in the chain of custody: (1) for the first link, the police officers failed to accomplish a chain of custody form in clear violation of Section 13 (c) of the 2010 PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation. PO1 Mangue, who marked the items, failed to indicate the date, time, and place where the items were seized in clear violation also of Section 13 (c) of the aforesaid manual; (2) for the second link, the prosecution failed to provide details on how SPO2 Dorado, the investigating officer, handled and preserved the identity and integrity of the subject items while in his custody; (3) for the third link, the stipulations of the parties on the supposed testimony of PCI Bombasi failed to shed light on how she handled the subject items while in her custody, describing the precautions she undertook to ensure that the objects' condition remained as is and no one else had the opportunity to possess them; and (4) for the fourth link, no testimony was offered to elucidate what happened to the items after the forensic chemist's examination. 20
Mercado added that the police officers failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 since a DOJ representative did not witness the conduct of the inventory and the police officers failed to show that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted to obtain the DOJ representative's presence thereat. 21 DETACa
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appearing for the prosecution, countered that the elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs on one hand, and the elements of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia on the other, were all proven. Based on PCI Bombasi's examination, the specimens seized — during the implementation of SW No. 13-525 witnessed by Brgy. Chairman Dawinan, media representative Garay, and Soledad — yielded positive for shabu and marijuana. For the OSG, though Mercado was not at his home during the search warrant's implementation, the illegal drugs and paraphernalia were found under the bed of his bedroom wherein he exercises complete control and dominion. Moreover, Mercado failed to prove that he was lawfully authorized to possess them. The OSG concluded that Mercado constructively possessed the contraband. The OSG noted that Mercado failed to rebut the presumption that he knew and possessed the illegal drugs and paraphernalia found in his home. 22
The OSG asserted that the failure to comply with one or two procedural requirements laid out in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is not fatal and it does not render Mercado's arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence. 23
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision 24 dated May 27, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. The CA ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The CA quoted lengthily PO1 Mangue's testimony on how SW No. 13-525 was implemented. The CA noted that since Mercado failed to show that the police officers were inappropriately motivated or that the latter improperly performed their duty, the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed stays. Mercado himself stated that: (i) no quarrel or grudge existed between him and the police officers; and (ii) no reason comes to mind why the latter would fabricate a case against him. 25
For the CA, the prosecution evidence revealed that the chain of custody requirement was complied with. PO1 Mangue immediately marked the seized items consecutively using Mercado's initials — "EM-1" to "EM-5" — after finding them inside the latter's home. Thereafter, the seized evidence was inventoried and photographed. The (i) seizure, (ii) marking, (iii) inventory, and (iv) photograph taking of the illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia were all done in the presence of Brgy. Chairman Dawinan, media representative Garay, and Soledad. PO1 Mangue turned over the seized items to SPO1 Dorado who placed them, as marked, inside a plastic container before the latter prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination. SPO1 Dorado returned the seized evidence to PO1 Mangue along with the letter request. On the same day, PO1 Mangue personally brought the confiscated items and letter request to PNP Crime Laboratory, Santa Cruz, Laguna wherein they were received by PCI Bombasi. After conducting the requested examination, those that were marked "EM-1," "EM-3," and "EM-4" all yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. On the other hand, the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "EM-2" tested positive for the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug. The CA acknowledged that even if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and it will not render inadmissible in evidence the seized items as long as their integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. 26
The CA found Mercado's denial and allegation of frame-up — the usual and standard defenses in prosecutions for violations of the dangerous drugs law — unsupported by clear and convincing evidence so these will not overcome the prosecution witnesses' categorical and positive testimonies. 27
As Mercado's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution 28 dated August 23, 2019, he filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and raised the following issues:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming his conviction for violation of Secs. 11 and 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 despite the police officers' failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the drugs allegedly recovered from him;
2. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming his conviction for violation of Secs. 11 and 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 despite the police officers' non-compliance with the requirements under Sec. 21, Art. II thereof; and
3. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming his conviction for violation of Secs. 11 and 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 29
In its Comment, 30 respondent, through the OSG, insists that it is improper for this Court to re-evaluate the factual findings of the RTC and the CA. A Rule 45 Petition should only raise questions of law since this Court is not a trier of facts. While there are established exceptions, petitioner failed to even advance one in the present petition. The OSG notes that Mercado reprises the same issues he raised before the CA. The OSG counters that: (i) the prosecution sufficiently proved all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia were proven; and (ii) there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule. 31
Issue
The sole issue to be determined is whether the prosecution established Mercado's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under R.A. 9165. aDSIHc
Ruling of the Court
The petition is meritorious.
Petitioner sought relief from this Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is fundamental that appeal by certiorari petitions may only raise pure questions of law, and that the factual findings of lower courts are generally binding and conclusive on this Court. Still, there are recognized exceptions and as regards criminal cases, "in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters x x x this Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the [lower courts]." 32 Section 6 (a) 33 of Rule 45 compels this Court to act when the court a quo has decided a question of substance not yet determined by this Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with applicable jurisprudence.
To successfully prosecute illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish that the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drugs without authority of law. 34 The elements that must be proven for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia are: (i) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (ii) such possession is not authorized by law. 35
In both instances, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drugs and drug paraphernalia be established beyond reasonable doubt, considering that they form an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crimes. The prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. In order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia on account of switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain from the moment of seizure up to presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 36 Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 37
An accused shall only be convicted of the crime charged once it has been established with certainty that the drugs examined and presented in court were the very ones seized. 38 To satisfy this requirement, the procedure under Section 21 39 of R.A. 9165 must be complied with. This provision was later amended by R.A. 10640 which took effect in 2014. Since the offense charged was allegedly committed on July 23, 2013, the apprehending team is required to conduct immediately a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as required witnesses, namely: a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. This must be so because with the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. 40
The prosecution failed to show that the search team strictly complied with the procedure and neither did it properly justify the search team's non-compliance.
Although media representative Garay and elected public official Brgy. Chairman Dawinan were present during the marking, inventory, and photograph-taking of the seized items after the implementation of SW No. 13-525, a DOJ representative was unquestionably absent and it does not appear that earnest efforts were in fact exerted to secure or obtain his presence or attendance at that time. The RTC and the CA focused primarily on Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides that only two witnesses are required to be present during the implementation of SW No. 13-525.
However, this Court pronounced in Tumabini v. People41 that a plain reading of R.A. 9165 reveals "that it applies as long as there has been a seizure and confiscation of drugs," 42 since "[t]here is nothing in the statutory provision which states that is only applicable when there is a warrantless seizure in a buy-bust operation. Thus, it should be applied in every situation when an apprehending team seizes and confiscates drugs from an accused, whether through a buy-bust operation or through a search warrant." 43 Accordingly and as required by Section 21 thereof, "in every situation where there is a seizure and confiscation of drugs, the presence of the accused, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official, is required during the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drugs, because they shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof." 44 Absence of one of the required representatives during the inventory and photograph taking of the seized items is enough to breach the chain of custody. 45
In Tumabini, this Court observed that "[Section] 8 of Rule 126 is a general provision with respect to the implementation of search warrants in all kinds of cases, such as for illegal firearms, infringing goods, or incriminating documents. On the other hand, [Section] 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and as implemented by its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), is a special provision that applies specifically to the seizure and confiscation of dangerous drugs. In case of conflict between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail regardless of the dates of their enactment." 46 "A review of the jurisprudence 47 shows that even when the drugs are seized and confiscated pursuant to a search warrant, the Court still applies [Section] 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to determine whether the corpus delicti was properly established." 48 Further, the DOJ and PNP themselves recognized in the 2011 PNP Criminal Investigation Manual "the mandatory nature of the requirements under Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR does not distinguish between warrantless seizures and those made by virtue of a warrant. The difference merely lies in the venues of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items." 49
The chain of custody is established by testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 50 ETHIDa
These links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 51
The prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti because it failed to account for the third and fourth links of the chain according to this Court's pronouncement in People v. Pajarin. 52 To dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist who examined the seized substance, it must be stipulated that: (1) she received the seized articles as marked, properly sealed and intact; (2) she resealed it after examination of the content; (3) she placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial; and (4) she took the precautionary steps to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 53 To repeat, the admissions regarding forensic chemist PCI Bombasi's proposed testimony are as follows:
1. The existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. LD-405-13, and the truthfulness of the contents thereof;
2. She was not present during Mercado's arrest;
3. She has no personal knowledge whether there were illegal drugs and paraphernalia recovered from Mercado during his arrest; and
4. She has no personal knowledge as regards the origin of the specimen she examined.
There was no stipulation on the condition of the specimens when she received them prior to their examination, e.g., if they were properly sealed and intact. The stipulations also failed to mention if PCI Bombasi: (1) placed her own markings on the seized articles; (2) resealed them after examination of their content; and (3) took the precautionary steps to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items to ensure that they could not be tampered with pending trial. The stipulations did not disclose where the specimens were kept after their qualitative examination and the possibility of other people having access to them. It is settled that absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs subject of seizure after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs is deemed not to have been reasonably established. 54
The prosecution also failed to provide any particulars on the turnover and submission of the seized illegal drugs from the forensic chemist to the court. All told, there was no complete account on the handling of the seized drugs from the time they were confiscated up to their presentation in court.
The abovementioned lapses to preserve the identity and integrity of the drugs allegedly seized from Mercado fall short of the required evidence to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 27, 2019 and the Resolution dated August 23, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41485 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Eliezer Mercado y Encena is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director General is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
The Office of the Solicitor General's comment on the petition for review on certiorari is NOTED. cSEDTC
SO ORDERED." (Zalameda and Gaerlan, JJ., no part.; Javier and Lopez, M., JJ., designated as Additional Members per Raffle dated January 20, 2020.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 11-29.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of the Court) and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of the Court); id. at 35-57.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court) and Rafael Antonio M. Santos; id. at 60-61.
4. Penned by Presiding Judge Cynthia R. Mariño-Ricablanca; id. at 83-90.
5. Id. at 83.
6. Id. at 84.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 40-41.
9. Id. at 41.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 36.
12. Id. at 84-85.
13. Id. at 85.
14. Id. at 38.
15. Id. at 86.
16. Id. at 90.
17. Id. at 87-89.
18. Id. at 87-88.
19. Id. at 64-81.
20. Id. at 72-75.
21. Id. at 77.
22. Id. at 101-108.
23. Id. at 111.
24. Supra note 2.
25. Rollo, pp. 45-51.
26. Id. at 52-55.
27. Id. at 55.
28. Supra note 3.
29. Rollo, pp. 16-17.
30. Id. at 138-152.
31. Id. at 144-151.
32. Daayata v. People, 807 Phil. 102, 112 (2017), citing People v. Esteban, 735 Phil. 663, 671 (2014).
33. Section 6. Review discretionary. — A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons thereof. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:
(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court.
34. People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
35. People v. Santos, 823 Phil. 1162, 1187 (2018).
36. People v. Lumaya, 827 Phil. 473, 484 (2018).
37. People v. Ismael, supra note 34 at 29, citing Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752, 758-759 (2012).
38. People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 225325, August 28, 2019, citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 142 (2010).
39. Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same 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, 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.
40. People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 471 (2007), citing People v. Tan, 432 Phil. 171, 197-198 (2002), People v. Tan, 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000), and People v. Gireng, 311 Phil. 12, 23 (1995).
41. G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.
42. Id.
43. Id.
44. Id.
45. People v. Martin, G.R. No. 231007, July 1, 2019.
46. Tumabini v. People, supra note 41.
47. People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19 (2017); Cunanan v. People, G.R. No. 237116, November 12, 2018; Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 239399, March 25, 2019; Derilo v. People, 784 Phil. 679 (2016); People v. Dumaplin, 700 Phil. 737 (2012).
48. Tumabini v. People, supra note 41.
49. Id.
50. People v. Ismael, supra note 34 at 31, citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
51. People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
52. 654 Phil. 461 (2011).
53. Id. at 466.
54. People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 229364, October 16, 2019.