People V. Romy Lim.docx

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMY LIM y MIRANDA, accusedappellant. G.R. No. 231989, EN BANC, September 4, 2018, PERALTA, J. The absence of the required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law. Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. 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. The Court held that these justifications are unacceptable as there was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law. FACTS: Based on a report of a confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Romy" has been engaged in the sale of prohibited drugs, hence, the proper officials conducted a buy-bust operation. Upon arrest, the accused, Lim, together with a certain Gorres, were ordered to put their hands on their heads and to squat on the floor. The Miranda rights were recited to them. Thereafter, a body search was conducted on both. When Lim was frisked, no deadly weapon was found, but something was bulging in his pocket. He was ordered to pull it out. Inside the pocket were the buy-bust money and a transparent rectangular plastic box about 3x4 inches in size. They could see that it contained a plastic sachet of a white substance. As for Gorres, no weapon or illegal drug was seized. IO1 Orellan took into custody the P500.00 marked money, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of white substance, and a disposable lighter. While in the house, IO1 Orellan marked the two plastic sachets. The officials testified that despite exerting efforts to secure the attendance of the representative from the media and barangay officials, nobody arrived to witness the inventory-taking. ISSUE: Whether or not Lim is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (NO)

RULING: Section 21(1) of RA 9165 provides that the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Evident, however, is the absence of an elected public official and representatives of the DOJ and the media to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items. In fact, their signatures do not appear in the Inventory Receipt. In cases of violation of RA 9165, 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 justifiable reason/s. Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. 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. It was also 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. The Court held that these justifications are unacceptable as there was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law. The prosecution did not only failed to present why they were not able to present witnesses but they also failed to establish the details of an earnest effort to coordinate with and secure presence of the required witnesses.