Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOCTRINE: In criminal prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of shabu, primordial
importance must be given to “the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
FACTS:
1. Police officers De Dios, Salamida, Isip, Bandoy and Barber received reports that Gayoso
is selling Shabu
2. P/Insp Isip filed for issuance of a search warrant
3. On March 24, 2004 a confirmatory test buy was conducted. After the sale was
consummated, De Dios texted his co-police to arrest Gayoso. They found 11 sachets of
white substance alleged to be shabu.
PROCEDURE:
4. 2 Information was filed against Gayoso for violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act for possession and selling of prohibited drugs
5. Gayoso: said she was framed, that Police De Dios was carrying a sachet that she thought
was tawas.
6. RTC: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt
7. On appeal, Gayoso assailed the validity of the search warrant that it was not issued upon
probable cause and the shabu was inadmissible in evidence due to several gaps in its
chain of custody
8. CA: Affirmed
ISSUE/S:
WON Gayoso is guilty of Illegal possession and selling of drugs
RULING: NO
NOTES:
4-links of chain of custody
1. Seizure and Marking
2. Turnover of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer
3. Turnover by the investigating officer to forensic chemist
4. Turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug from the chemist to the court
RULING (CONTINUATION)
- Records of the case show that the arresting officers did not mark the seized items in
the presence of the appellant.
- Hence the forensic chemist can’t assert that the alleged substance is the very same
substance in the possession of Gayoso during the alleged commission of the crime.
- In this case, the apprehending team never conducted a physical inventory of the seized
items at the place where the search warrant was served in the presence of a
representative of the Department of Justice, nor did it photograph the same in the
presence of appellant after their initial custody and control of said drug, and after
immediately seizing and confiscating the same. Neither was an explanation offered for
such failure. While this directive of rigid compliance has been tempered in certain cases,
"such liberality, as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations can be applied only
when the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved."