CHAPTER 3

SEARCH AND SEIZURES

People v. Almayda, G.R. No. 227706. June14, 2023
(Warrantless Seizures)

Facts:
The accused-appellants—Allan Almayda y Selfides and Homero Quiogue y Adornado—were
charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

The charge pertained to the alleged sale and delivery of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) on or about April 19, 2012 in the City of
Legazpi, Philippines.

Prosecution's Version
A confidential informant reported the illegal drug activities of Quiogue and an alias “Kalaw” (later
identified as Almayda) to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office V in
March 2012.

A buy-bust operation was organized with key participants including Agent Mari-NiAa Z. Belo
(team leader), Agent Daniel Tan (poseur-buyer), and Agent Enrique Lucero (arresting officer).

On April 18, 2012, a meeting was arranged where Almayda insisted on selling a minimum of
₱4,500.00 worth of shabu, despite the informant’s original arrangement for a ₱2,000.00 deal.

The transaction took place the following day at 7th Inn’s Bulaluhan Resto Bar, where Almayda
handed over two heat-sealed sachets containing white crystalline substance to Agent Tan.

After verifying the items, Agent Tan exchanged the sachets for the marked ₱4,500.00 buy-bust
money, which was later passed on to Quiogue.

The agents subsequently signaled the consummation of the sale by removing Agent Tan’s cap
and proceeded to arrest the accused.

The seized items, along with the cash, were transported to the PDEA Regional Office where a
physical inventory and photograph-taking were conducted in the presence of various officials
and witnesses.

A forensic examination by Forensic Chemist Wilfredo Idian Pabustan, Jr. confirmed the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride in the seized specimens.
Defense's Version of Events
The accused-appellants contended that on April 19, 2012, Almayda had just come from a
hearing at the Regional Trial Court and had proceeded to meet Quiogue at 7th Inn.

They alleged that the arrest was marred by irregularities, including being taken by the PDEA
agents with their cash and cellphones confiscated after arriving at the PDEA office, not at the
scene of the alleged crime.

Regional Trial Court Proceedings

On August 23, 2013, the trial court rendered a verdict of conviction, finding both accused-
appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The convictions were based in part on the testimony of the PDEA agents, the chain of custody
of the seized items, and the forensic evidence establishing the nature of the substance as
methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The court sentenced each accused to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₱1,000,000.00,
awarding full credibility to the prosecution’s evidence.

Appellate and Reconsideration Proceedings

On appeal, the accused argued that the chain of custody was broken, notably on two grounds:
1. The seized items were not immediately inventoried and photographed at the place of
seizure.
2. There was no testimony to explain how Bumalay and Forensic Chemist Pabustan, Jr.
both claimed to have received the alleged shabu from Agent Tan.

For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General maintained that the trial court correctly found
accused-appellants guilty as all the elements of the crime were duly proven. The chain of
custody was not broken; thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item was
preserved.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

As stated, under Resolution19 dated November 11, 2021, the Court also affirmed. We ruled that
prosecution witness Agent Tan gave a detailed narration of the transaction and positively
identified accused-appellants as the persons who sold him the seized drugs. Too, the chain of
custody was preserved. The fact that the inventory was conducted in the PDEA Regional Office
and not at the place of arrest was of no moment.

In their Motion for Reconsideration dated April 7, 2022, accused-appellants plead anew for their
acquittal. They maintain that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
Notably, the inventory was conducted in the PDEA office, contrary to the procedure set forth in
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

Supreme Court
Our Ruling on Accused-Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration

We reckon with the chain of custody in drugs cases, specifically, the first link, which refers to the
seizure and marking which must be done immediately at the place of the arrest. Too, it includes
the physical inventory and photograph-taking of the seized drug which should be done in the
presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, together with an elected public
official, a representative of the DOJ, and the media.

Here, it is undisputed that the physical inventory and photograph-taking of the seized items
were conducted at the PDEA Office, and not at the place of arrest. Poseur-buyer Agent Tan
testified that he marked the plastic sachets with "DMT A 4-19-12" and "DMT B 4-19-12" at the
place of arrest, but the team then returned to the PDEA office to conduct the inventory and
photograph-taking in the presence of Barangay Chairwoman Azotillo, Barangay Kagawad
Belbes, media representative Romero, and DOJ representative Aragon, and accused-
appellants. Importantly, Agent Tan failed to give any justification why the inventory was not
conducted at the place of arrest.

In the recent case of People v. Casa, the Court settled that, in case of warrantless seizures, the
inventory and taking of photographs generally must be conducted at the place of seizure.

The exception to this rule—where the physical inventory and taking of photographs of
the seized item may be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer or team—is when the police officers provide justification that:
(1) it is not practicable to conduct the same at the place of seizure; or
(2) the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger at the place of
seizure.

As held in Casa, when the police officers are able to provide a sensible reason, which is
practicable, consistent, and not merely generic or an afterthought, then the courts will recognize
that the police officers indeed may conduct the inventory at the nearest police station or the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. Such reason must be indicated in the affidavits
of the police officers who participated in the buy-bust operation.

As stated, the prosecution witnesses here failed to give any justification, much less, a sufficient
one, why the inventory had to be conducted at the PDEA Regional Office instead of the place of
arrest. Evidently, therefore, the first and most important link was already broken early on.

As for the succeeding links, compliance with the requirements does not serve to cure the
incipient breach which attended early on the first link in the chain of custody. As held in
People v. Ismael, there was already a significant break such that there can be no assurance
against switching, planting, or contamination even though the subsequent links were not
similarly infirm.
In other words, there is no way by which the already compromised identity and integrity of the
seized drug items can ever be cleansed of its incipient defect. Hence, accused-appellants must
be acquitted as a matter of right.

In view of the procedural infirmities in the chain of custody, the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items cannot be said to have been preserved. These procedural infirmities cast
serious doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The metaphorical chain did not
link at all, albeit it unjustly restrained appellant's right to liberty. If the chain of custody procedure
had not been complied with, or no justifiable reason exists for its non-compliance, as in this
case, then it is the Court's duty to overturn the verdict of conviction.

As the Court stated in People v. Macud, we recognize the pernicious effects of dangerous drugs
in our society, but the efforts to defeat or eradicate these cannot trample on the constitutional
rights of individuals, particularly those at the margins of our society who are prone to abuse at
the hands of the armed and uniformed men of the State. Time and again, we have exhorted
courts "to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the
unusually severe penalties for drug offenses."

ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration dated April 7, 2022 is GRANTED. The
Resolution dated November 11, 2021 of the Court is REVERSED. Accused-appellants Allan
Almayda y Selfides and Homero Quiogue y Adornado are ACQUITTED and ORDERED
IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless they are being lawfully held for another
cause.