G.R. No. 242025 - People vs. Sendad y Kundo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 242025)

Factual Background

The prosecutions stemmed from two criminal complaints before the RTC for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution narrated that at around 1:00 p.m. of January 11, 2013, members of the San Narciso Police successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against Sendad. During the operation, the police recovered two plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance from Sendad.

After her arrest, the police conducted a bodily search and recovered four additional plastic sachets, wrapped in paper, containing a combined weight of 0.2613 gram of suspected shabu. According to the prosecution, PO3 Relyn Gonzales (PO3 Gonzales) marked the six sachets, while PO1 Emmanuel Europa (PO1 Europa) marked the cellphone. The police brought Sendad and the seized items to the police station for documentation and investigation, and then turned them over to SPO1 John Bacea (SPO1 Bacea) for inventory and photography in the presence of Sendad, Barangay Kagawad Randy L. Casama, and Leo Diaz, identified as a media representative. The prosecution expressly did not have Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel present during the inventory and photography.

Thereafter, the seized items were returned to PO3 Gonzales, who kept them until the next day, when he turned them over to the crime laboratory. The chemistry report later showed that the contents were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly referred to as shabu.

Sendad denied the charges. She claimed that she was inside Kimsan Plaza to buy household supplies when PO3 Gonzales allegedly placed his arm on her shoulder, while two other persons approached from behind. She alleged that they instructed her not to resist or shout and to go with them, and she asserted that she did not know them. She claimed that at the Tacurong City Police Station, they frisked her, took P3,500.00, confiscated her cellphone, and made her sign a document. She further alleged that she was detained in the lock-up cell and learned only later that she was arrested for selling shabu, which she denied. She denied any commotion related to her purported arrest in Kimsan Plaza.

To support her denial, Sendad presented Rosemarie Belandres (Belandres), a roving guard assigned to the grocery section of Kimsan Plaza. Belandres testified that there was no commotion in that area on the date of the incident and that she had no knowledge of any drug apprehension. Anthony Gonio (Gonio), the head of security of Kimsan Plaza during the incident, corroborated that he received no report about any apprehension, marking, or inventory of drugs in the grocery section on that day.

Proceedings in the RTC

In the RTC Judgment dated April 28, 2016, the court convicted Sendad of the charged offenses and imposed the following penalties: in Criminal Case No. 3637-T (illegal sale), life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole and a fine of P500,000.00; and in Criminal Case No. 3638-T (illegal possession), imprisonment of eight (8) years as minimum to fourteen (14) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day as maximum, with a fine of P300,000.00.

The RTC held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Sendad sold two plastic sachets of dangerous drugs during the buy-bust operation and that she was later found in illegal and knowing possession of four additional sachets. The RTC also found that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the drugs were duly preserved. It acknowledged contradictions in the testimonies of PO3 Gonzales and PO1 Europa but considered them as concerning collateral matters that, in the RTC’s view, did not diminish credibility and instead dispelled suspicion of prior rehearsal. The RTC rejected Sendad’s denial for lack of substantiation and gave weight to positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. It likewise discounted Belandres and Gonio for being unreliable due to the lapse of time between the incident and their testimony.

CA Appellate Ruling

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC conviction in a Decision dated June 21, 2018, but modified the penalty in Criminal Case No. 3638-T to twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum. The CA ruled that the prosecution established the elements of the crimes charged and the links in the chain of custody beyond reasonable doubt. It likewise agreed with the RTC that the contradictions in PO3 Gonzales and PO1 Europa did not weaken the prosecution’s case.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Sendad sought reversal of her conviction. The Supreme Court’s focus turned on whether the prosecution had established, with the degree of certainty required in drug cases, the identity of the dangerous drugs and the integrity of the corpus delicti, through proof of each link in the chain of custody from seizure to court presentation, including compliance with the required safeguards on marking, inventory, photography, and the presence of required witnesses during those steps.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Court held that in cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, the prosecution must establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, because the dangerous drug forms an integral part of the corpus delicti. Failure to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti makes the State’s evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.

To establish identity with moral certainty, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody from seizure up to presentation in court. As part of the chain-of-custody requirements, the law requires that marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. The Court recognized jurisprudence stating that “marking upon immediate confiscation” may include marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, so failure to mark at the precise place of arrest does not automatically impair admissibility or integrity.

However, the Court emphasized the distinct requirement that inventory and photography be conducted in the presence of the accused (or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel) and certain required witnesses, depending on whether the apprehension occurred before or after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640. Under the post-amendment framework adopted in the Court’s discussion, the required witnesses included an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media.

The Court underscored that the presence of these witnesses primarily ensures the establishment of chain of custody and removes suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination. While the Court acknowledged that due to field conditions strict compliance may not always be possible, it held that deviations require the prosecution to prove justifiable grounds for non-compliance and to show that integrity and evidentiary value were properly preserved. The Court stressed that it cannot presume justifiable grounds.

In evaluating compliance with witness requirements, the Court further recognized that non-compliance may be excused if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the witnesses’ presence, even if they eventually failed to appear. Still, the Court held that mere assertions of unavailability, without proof of serious attempts to contact the witnesses, are insufficient. It reasoned that police officers ordinarily have sufficient time to prepare for buy-bust operations and therefore have a duty to arrange for strict compliance with chain-of-custody rules.

The Court invoked the reminder in People v. Miranda, which stressed the positive duty of the State to account for lapses in chain of custody regardless of whether the defense raises the issue in the trial court, because integrity-related defects may lead to conviction being overturned upon further review.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 242025)

People of the Philippines prosecuted Norin Sendad y Kundo a.k.a. “Nhorain Sendad y Kusain” (Sendad) for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The appeal assailed the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated June 21, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01626-MIN affirming the Regional Trial Court of Tacurong City, Branch 20 (RTC) Judgment dated April 28, 2016.
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the CA Decision and ordered Sendad’s acquittal due to failure to preserve the integrity of the alleged drugs under the chain of custody requirements.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The accused-appellant was Sendad, while People of the Philippines served as plaintiff-appellee.
The case began in the RTC through two criminal complaints for Illegal Sale (Criminal Case No. 3637-T) and Illegal Possession (Criminal Case No. 3638-T).
The RTC found Sendad guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed penalties and fines for both offenses.
The CA affirmed Sendad’s conviction but modified the penalty in Criminal Case No. 3638-T to twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum.
Sendad then appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction.
The Supreme Court held the prosecution’s evidence insufficient and acquitted Sendad.

Key Factual Allegations

The prosecution alleged that at around 1:00 p.m. of January 11, 2013, police officers implemented a buy-bust operation against Sendad.
The prosecution claimed that during the operation, two (2) plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance were recovered from Sendad in the course of the illegal sale to the poseur-buyer.
After Sendad’s arrest, the prosecution alleged that a bodily search produced four (4) more plastic sachets wrapped in paper, with a combined weight of 0.2613 gram of suspected shabu.
The prosecution presented that PO3 Relyn Gonzales (PO3 Gonzales) marked the six (6) plastic sachets, while PO1 Emmanuel Europa (PO1 Europa) marked the cellphone.
The seized items and Sendad were brought to the police station for documentation and investigation.
The prosecution alleged that at the police station, the police investigator and Senior Police Officer 1 John Bacea (SPO1 Bacea) conducted inventory and photography in the presence of Sendad, Barangay Kagawad Randy L. Casama, and Leo Diaz, a media representative.
The prosecution conceded that no Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel were present during the inventory and photography.
The prosecution stated that the seized items were returned to PO3 Gonzales, who kept them until the next day, when they were turned over to the crime laboratory for examination.
The crime laboratory examination yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, supported by Chemistry Report No. D-013-2013 dated January 12, 2013.

Defense Theory Presented

Sendad denied the charges and testified that she was inside Kimsan Plaza to buy household supplies when PO3 Gonzales suddenly placed his arm on her shoulder.
Sendad claimed that two other persons followed from behind, told her not to resist or shout, and instructed her to go with them.
She asserted that she did not know the arresting officers.
Sendad alleged that she was brought to the Tacurong City Police Station, where she was frisked, made to sign a document, and was allegedly dispossessed of P3,500.00 and her cellphone.
Sendad stated that she later learned she was being arrested for selling shabu and denied any commotion in Kimsan Plaza at the time of the alleged buy-bust.
Sendad’s defense denial was corroborated by Rosemarie Belandres, a roving guard in the Kimsan Plaza grocery section, who testified that there was no commotion in that area on the incident date.
Sendad further relied on Anthony Gonio, head of security of Kimsan Plaza, who testified that he did not receive any report of an apprehension, or of any marking or inventory of drugs, in the grocery section on the said date.

RTC Findings and Reasoning

The RTC ruled that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the elements for Illegal Sale by proving identity of buyer and seller, the object and consideration, delivery of the thing sold, and payment.
The RTC found that the prosecution established the elements for Illegal Possession by proving that Sendad possessed an item identified as prohibited drug, that such possession was not authorized by law, and that she freely and consciously possessed the drug.
The RTC found that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs were duly preserved.
The RTC addressed contradictions between PO3 Gonzales and PO1 Europa by characterizing them as referring only to collateral matters that strengthened the witnesses’ credibility.
The RTC rejected Sendad’s denial because she failed to substantiate the defense and because the prosecution witnesses identified her.
The RTC declined to give credence to Belandres and Gonio, reasoning that their testimonies were potentially unreliable due to the elapsed time between the incident and their testimony.
The RTC convicted Sendad and imposed penalties and fines: life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole and P500,000.00 fine for Criminal Case No. 3637-T, and imprisonment of eight (8) years to fourteen (14) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day, and P300,000.00 fine for Criminal Case No. 3638-T.

CA Ruling and Modification

The CA