see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/202709.pdf
"x x x.
Yet, the police officers did not bother to offer any sort of reason or
justification for their failure to make an inventory and take pictures of the
drugs immediately after their seizure in the presence of the accused and the other persons designated by the law. Both the RTC and the CA
misapprehended the significance of such omission. It is imperative for the
prosecution to establish a justifiable cause for non-compliance with the
procedural requirements set by law.22 The procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 are not merely empty formalities—these are safeguards against abuse,23 the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.24
And what is the prosecution’s evidence that the substances, which the
police chemist examined and found to be shabu, were the same substances that the police officers allegedly seized from Romeo and Mercy? No such
evidence exists. As pointed out above, the prosecution stipulated with the
accused that the police chemist “could not testify on the source and origin of the subject specimens that she had examined.” No police officer testified out of personal knowledge that the substances given to the police chemist and examined by her were the very same substances seized from the accused.
In regard to the required presence of representatives from the DOJ and
the media and an elective official, the prosecution also did not bother to
offer any justification, even a hollow one, for failing to comply with such
requirement. What is more, the police officers could have easily coordinated with any elected barangay official in the conduct of the police operation in the locality."
