G.R. No. 205539 - Cruz vs. Spouses Christensen

On January 3, 2014, in San Pedro, Laguna, the petitioner, Rosana Hedreyda y Lizarda, was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
The Information alleged that the petitioner unlawfully possessed two small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), totaling 0.58 gram.

A concerned citizen reported an ongoing illegal drug trade at Amil Compound, Barangay San Antonio, San Pedro, Laguna, at approximately 1:30 p.m. on January 3, 2014.
Police officers, including PO2 Mateo F. Cailo and PO2 Melmar B. Viray, responded to the tip and arrived at the location around 4:30 p.m.
During surveillance, PO2 Cailo observed the petitioner from a distance, handling a transparent plastic sachet suspected of containing shabu.
After approaching her, the arresting officers, identifying themselves and informing her of the charge, compelled the petitioner to produce the contents of her pocket. Another sachet was discovered and both were marked with the petitioner’s initials ("RLH" and "RLH-1").
The petitioner was taken to the police station where a physical inventory (including photographing the seized items) was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and a media representative.
The seized items were then submitted to the crime laboratory where forensic analysis confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The petitioner contended that, around noon on the same day, she was asleep at home when police officers arrived looking for her husband.
During the search of her residence, PO2 Viray claimed to have found shabu on her bed, a claim which the petitioner denied, maintaining that she did not keep any drugs in her house.
On arraignment, she pleaded “not guilty” to the charge.

In a December 7, 2016 Judgment by the RTC of San Pedro City, Laguna (Criminal Case No. 13-9460-SPL), the petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The court opined that the evidence showed substantial compliance with the procedural safeguards, particularly emphasizing the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment (a minimum of 12 years and 1 day to a maximum of 14 years and 8 months) and a fine of P300,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, on January 23, 2018, affirmed her conviction, holding that the deviation from strictly complying with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not fatal provided that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
A subsequent resolution for reconsideration was denied by the CA on November 13, 2018, prompting the petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that after seizure, the drugs must be physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused (or representative), a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
Although an amendment via R.A. No. 10640 later reduced the mandatory witnesses from three to two, the petitioner’s offense occurred before such amendment, rendering the original requirements applicable.
The prosecution’s evidence revealed that during the inventory, only one of the three required witness categories was present; there was no elected public official nor DOJ representative, and the name of the media representative was not recalled by PO2 Cailo.

The Supreme Court referenced prior decisions (e.g., People v. Mendoza, People v. Reyes, People v. Relato, and People v. Umipang) underscoring the critical importance of an unbroken chain of custody.
The jurisprudence stressed that even minor deviations require clear and justifiable explanations by the police; failure to adhere to these procedures raises grave doubts as to the authenticity of the seized drugs as evidence.

Whether the mandatory procedural requirements for the chain of custody, specifically the presence of all required witnesses during the inventory and photograph-taking of seized drugs, were complied with.
Whether the absence of an elected public official, a DOJ representative, and the inability to recall the media representative’s identity constituted a substantial gap that could taint the integrity of the evidence.

Whether the gaps in the chain of custody cast serious doubt on the integrity and authenticity of the seized drugs as constituting the corpus delicti.
Whether such doubts, in view of the procedural lapses, justify the petitioner’s acquittal given the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Whether the prosecution could invoke the saving clause in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to excuse its failure to comply with the mandatory witness requirements.