Can an accused be acquitted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs even when the police conducted an inventory, photographed the seized items, and secured the signatures of the required witnesses?
In People of the Philippines v. Neil Albis y Barrameda, G.R. No. 266701, July 8, 2026, the Supreme Court acquitted an accused previously convicted of violating Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove not only the presence of mandatory insulating witnesses during the inventory but also their identities and qualifications. Failure to do so creates reasonable doubt concerning compliance with the chain of custody requirements.
The Case: Conviction for Possession of Shabu and Drug Paraphernalia
On August 28, 2014, police officers implemented a search warrant at a residence in Legazpi City, Albay.
During the search, the police allegedly recovered 18 sachets containing approximately 6.18 grams of shabu, together with weighing scales, aluminum foils, and other suspected drug paraphernalia.
The police marked, photographed, and inventoried the seized items in the presence of barangay officials and a Department of Justice representative.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Neil Albis of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed his conviction. However, the Supreme Court reversed both convictions and ordered his immediate release.
Why Did the Supreme Court Acquit the Accused?
The acquittal centered on a critical evidentiary deficiency: the prosecution failed to establish the identities and official qualifications of the mandatory witnesses who supposedly attended the inventory.
Under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, the inventory and photographing of seized dangerous drugs must be conducted in the presence of the required insulating witnesses.
For seizures conducted beginning August 7, 2014, these witnesses include:
- An elected public official; and
- A representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.
Although the police claimed that a barangay chairperson and a DOJ representative witnessed the inventory, the prosecution failed to adequately establish their identities and credentials.
The Supreme Court identified several deficiencies.
First: Photographs Did Not Establish the Witness's Identity
The prosecution submitted photographs showing a woman believed to be the barangay chairperson who supposedly witnessed the inventory.
However, the Court observed that her identity was not substantiated by supporting evidence.
The mere appearance of a person in an inventory photograph does not automatically prove that the person possesses the qualifications required by law.
Second: Signatures on the Inventory Were Insufficient
The alleged barangay chairperson's signature appeared on the Certificate of Inventory and Certification of Orderly Search. Nevertheless, the prosecution presented no sufficient proof establishing her identity and official capacity.
Citing People v. Flores, the Supreme Court reiterated that compliance with Section 21 cannot rest merely on presumptions regarding the identities of insulating witnesses.
Their identities and credentials must be established by evidence.
Third: The Alleged Barangay Official Was Never Presented as a Witness
Although the barangay chairperson was listed as a prosecution witness in the pre-trial proceedings, she was never presented during trial.
The prosecution likewise failed to introduce sufficient documentary evidence confirming her identity and qualifications.
These omissions prevented the Court from concluding beyond reasonable doubt that the required insulating witnesses had properly participated in the inventory.
Fourth: The Defect Undermined the Chain of Custody
The Supreme Court explained that establishing the identities of insulating witnesses is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the safeguards governing seized dangerous drugs.
Even though the police had performed the marking, inventory, and photographing procedures, their failure to prove the qualifications of the required witnesses undermined the prosecution's proof of the integrity of the seized evidence.
The Court applied the doctrine in People v. Flores, which requires the prosecution to establish the identities and credentials of mandatory insulating witnesses.
Significantly, the Supreme Court applied this interpretation even though the police operation occurred years before Flores was decided.
It also considered the issue despite the accused raising it only on appeal, recognizing that a criminal appeal opens the entire case for review.
Supreme Court Orders Acquittal for Reasonable Doubt
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the chain of custody requirements beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, it acquitted Neil Albis of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia and ordered his immediate release, unless he was being detained for another lawful cause.
The ruling reinforces a fundamental principle of criminal law: a conviction cannot rest on presumptions when the prosecution fails to establish the legal safeguards necessary to preserve the identity and integrity of seized dangerous drugs.
Need a Criminal Defense Lawyer for an RA 9165 Case?
If you or a family member is facing charges involving illegal possession or sale of dangerous drugs, examining the police officers' compliance with the chain of custody requirements may be critical to the defense. Cunanan Law Office provides legal representation in RA 9165 cases, criminal appeals, and other criminal defense proceedings in the Philippines. Contact us at inquiries@mpeclaw.com or call (+63) 968-679-6617 to schedule a consultation.