Title V: Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Chain of Custody

59 People vs Agulay

Facts:

An informant at Police Station 5 of Novaliches informed the police that a certain Sing had
been selling Shabu at Brgy. Sta. Lucia, Novaliches, Quezon City. A police entrapment was formed,
and the buy bust team went to the place where the alleged seller of drugs was conducting
operations.

The informant pointed the “drug pusher” to PO2 Herrera, the poseur buyer. Both the
informant and the Poseur Buyer approached Sing. The alleged sale of Shabu was conducted,
PO2 Herrera bought the Shabu using the P100 marked money. PO2 then scratched his head which
signaled the entrance to the scene of the rest of the buy bust team. PO2 Herrera recovered two
plastic sachets from Sing’s pocket. These were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
chemical analysis. These sachets were found to have Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or
SHABU.

Appellant contends that the Chain of Custody has been violated which warrants his
acquittal because the procedure according to Section 21(a) of RA 9165 was not followed, which
states that:

“(a) 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;”

Issue: Whether or not failure to comply with the procedure in Section 21(a) breaks the Chain of
Custody of the illegal drug seized

Held: NO.

Ruling:

Non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21(a) of RA 9165 does not warrant the
acquittal of the accused.

Non-compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.

Failure to comply with such procedure is a matter between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the
arresting officers. It is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case for the reason that
the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once
the sale or transaction is established and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the failure
of the arresting officers to comply with the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board.
There is no showing of a broken chain in the custody of the seized items, later on determined to
be shabu, from the moment of its seizure by the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to
the time it was brought to the forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory
examination. It was duly established by documentary, testimonial, and object evidence, including
the markings on the plastic sachets containing the shabu that the substance tested by the forensic
chemist, whose laboratory tests were well-documented, was the same as that taken from
accused-appellant.

Note: Not all who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court.