Prosecution’s Arguments:

 Bainey Santos brought suspected shabu and aluminum foil as drug paraphenalia into
the city jail discovered upon inspection of her belongings
 Accused was found out to be visiting her live in partner who is an inmate for drug related
crimes
 A jailguard took photos of the evidences in the presence of the witness
 Witness placed markings on the evidences
 Witness signed a document pertaining to the evidences he surrendered to SDEU in the
presence of a public officer
 Evidences were turned over by the witness to SOCO

Defense’s Arguments:

 She and her companion were bringing food for the inmate, contained in bags they both
packed at home
 A man named Henry forcefully placed the pair of slippers inside one of the bags she was
carrying
 She did not approve of the placement of slippers but was unable to further act on nor
check it as they were rushing
 Upon checking of her belongings, the jailguard took out the slippers and the Toblerone
 Accused and her companion were asked to transfer to another table and to remove the
aluminum foil of the Toblerone
 The jailguard searched the slippers and asked them what the contents were
 The jailguard did not show them anything that was found from the slippers
 Accused emphasized that this is the only time something was allegedly found in her
belongings albeit her numerous prior visits to the city jail

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was integrity in the conducted search, seizure and confiscation of the
alleged drugs and paraphernalia that will warrant the liability of the accused under RA 9165.

RULING:
No. While RA 9165 provides the penalty to an offender, once proven, for sale, trading,
administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals (Section 5), and mere possession of prohibited
drugs (Section 11), the same law under Section 21 (as amended by RA 10640) compels for the
proper handling, custody and control 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, to wit:
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 dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a
physical inventory of the seized items 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: Provided, That the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That
noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody
over said items.
“x x x
The prosecution witness’ testimony enumerated the steps taken after the suspected drugs and
paraphernalia were allegedly discovered to be brought by the accused in one of her belongings.
None of the steps mentioned about having the evidences showed to the accused, nor
photographed and inventoried in her presence or in the presence of her counsel of
representative. True, the seizure was warrantless and out of necessity if the allegation was
correct, still, the pragmatic assumption is that the jailguard could easily show to the accused
and her companion the suspected drugs that alleged to have found in their belongings given
that they were all physically present and in close contact that day.
The jailguard/witness also stated under oath that he marked the evidences and signed the
documenting receipt in the presence of a public official before he turned over to SOCO. Section
21 of RA 9165 (as amended by RA 10640) makes clear that 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 shall be taken charge and be in custody of PDEA.
As the prosecution witness’ testimony and evidences pointed to a conclusion that there had
been irregularities questioning the integrity of the arrest, seizure, and more so, the disposition
and custody of the suspected drugs and paraphernalia, there is reason for this court to believe
that there was no clear evidences to prove that the accused violated the provisions of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.