In the case of People of the Philippines vs Romy Lim y Miranda, G.R. No.

231989, September 04, 2018, the court held:

It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three

witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal
drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was
a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph
of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory
action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her
behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the
punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to
secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an
elected public official within the period required under Article 125
of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the
arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with
arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-
drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets,
prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the
required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.

In this case, IO1 Orellan testified that no members of the media and
barangay officials arrived at the crime scene because it was late at night and it
was raining, making it unsafe for them to wait at Lim's house.35 IO2 Orcales
similarly declared that the inventory was made in the PDEA office considering
that it was late in the evening and there were no available media representative
and barangay officials despite their effort to contact them. He admitted that
there are times when they do not inform the barangay officials prior to their
operation as they. might leak the confidential information. We are of the view
that these justifications are unacceptable as there was no genuine and
sufficient attempt to comply with the law
The prosecution failed to explain why they did not secure the presence of
a representative from the Department of the arresting officer, IO1 Orellan,
stated in his Affidavit that they only tried to coordinate with the barangay
officials and the media, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to
show that they tried to contact a DOJ representative.

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also failed to establish the

details of an earnest effort to coordinate with and secure presence of the
required witnesses. They also failed to explain why the buy-bust team felt
"unsafe" in waiting for the representatives in Lim's house, considering that the
team is composed of at least ten (10) members, and the two accused were the
only persons in the house.

In the case of People of the Philippine vs Umipang, G.R. No. 190321,

April 25, 2012, the court held:

That the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were

employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the
law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable
without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts
were employed to look for other representatives, given the
circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere
statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to
contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified
grounds for non- compliance. These considerations arise from the
fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time -
beginning from the moment they have received the information
about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest - to
prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the
necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they
would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in
Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not
only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact,
also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply
with the mandated procedure, and that under the given
circumstances, their actions were reasonable.

We find that there was no genuine and sufficient effort on the part of the
apprehending police officers to look for the said representatives pursuant to
Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. A sheer statement that representatives were
unavailable – without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts
were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances – is to
be regarded as a flimsy excuse. We stress that it is the prosecution who has the
positive duty to establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the
representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, or that there was
a justifiable ground for failing to do so.
 In the case of People of the Philippines v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro, G.R.
No. 224290, June 11, 2018, the court held:

The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause

for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate
observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings,
it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived
deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the
mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be
proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It
should take note that the rules require that the apprehending
officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly
state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement
on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items.
Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of
illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to
planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.

In this case the trial court, the police officers testified that there
was an inventory prepared by PO1 Gorospe at the police station, but
failed to submit in evidence the said document, and that they did not
have any barangay official. or media person with them during the
operation. Even so, the prosecution proffered no justifiable reason why
the police officers dispensed with the requirements of taking of
photograph and conduct of physical inventory of the accused and the
seized items in the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the
media, and an elected public official, not just at the crime scene but also
at the police station.

In People of the Philippines v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018,
27 the Court elucidated on the purpose of the law in mandating the presence of
the required witnesses as follows:
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and
from public elective office is necessary to protect against the
possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug.
 In the case of People of the Philippines vs Nila Malana y Sambolledo, G.R.
No. 233747, December 05, 2018, the court held:
Without the insulating presence of the representative from
the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the
seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting"
or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts
conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that
was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the
trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the
insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an
unbroken chain of custody.

In the case of People vs Randon Dela Cruz and James Francis Bautista,
G.R. No. 225741, December 05, 2018, the court held:

The witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted

if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted
genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such
witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the
earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case
basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced
that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given
circumstances.34 Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent
actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are
unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.35 These
considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily
given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have
received the information about the activities of the accused until
the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and
consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand,
knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the
chain of custody rule.
 In this case the Court finds that the prosecution failed to comply
with the procedure since the inventory and photography of the seized
item were not conducted in the presence of a media representative. As
evinced by the Inventory of Seized Properties/Items, only Allas (an
elected public official) and Gaffuy (a representative from the DOJ) were
present to witness these activities. Although the prosecution in its Pre-
Trial Brief averred that "No media representatives were present despite
efforts x x x to secure their presence," nothing else on record appears to
substantiate the same. Indeed, this general averment, without more,
cannot be accepted as a proper justification to excuse non-compliance
with the law. As earlier discussed, prevailing jurisprudence requires the
prosecution to account for the absence of any of the required witnesses
by presenting a justifiable reason therefor or, at the very least, by
showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the
apprehending officers to secure their presence. Clearly, these standards
were not observed in this case.

In the case of People of the Philippines vs Emmanuel Oliva y Jorjil,

Bernardo Barangot y Pilais and Marl Angelo Manalastas y gapasin, the court
held;

That the absence of a representative of the National

Prosecution Service or the media during the inventory of the seized
items was not justifiably explained by the prosecution. A review of
the Transcript of Stenographic Notes does not yield any testimony
from the arresting officers as to the reason why there was no
representative from the DOJ or the media. The only one present to
witness the inventory and the marking was an elected
official, Barangay Captain Evelyn Villamor. Neither was there any
testimony to show that any attempt was made to secure the
presence of the required witness.
The prosecution bears the burden of proof to show valid
cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to
demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that, during the
proceedings before the trial court, it must initiate in acknowledging
and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of
the law.30 Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be
adequately explained and must be proven as a fact in accordance
with the rules on evidence. The rules require that the
apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground,
but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled
with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of
the seized item. A stricter adherence to Section 21 is required
where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule since it is
highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration.