Katrizia Cerize L.

Fauni
Legal Research
Case Synthesis – Chain of Custody Rule in Drug Cases

People v. Radang G.R. No. 208093, Feb 20, 2017

People v. Dilao G.R. No. 170359 July 27, 2007
People v. Rivera G.R No. 182347 October 17, 2008
People v. Capalad G.R. No. 184174 April 7, 2009
People v. Musa G.R. No.

Articles 190-194 of the Revised Penal Code are repealed by Republic

Act No. 6425, “The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972” which took effect
on March 30, 1972 (Sec. 42),as amended by PD No. 1683 and
further amended by RA No. 7659.

THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 (R. A. NO. 9165, repealing

R. A. NO.6425 and RPC provisions on crimes related to opium and
other prohibited drugs) which has policies on (1) Campaign against
Drugs and Protection of State (2) Balance - Medicinal Purpose (3)
Rehabilitation.

Philippine courts decided plenty of cases regarding the above

mentioned to avoid and punish individuals who use and break such
law.
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, or Republic Act No.
9165, is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1858 and House Bill No.
4433. It was enacted and passed by the Senate of the Philippines
and House of Representatives of the Philippines on May 30, 2002
and May 29, 2002, respectively. It was signed into law by President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on June 7, 2002.
This Act repealed Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and providing funds for
its implementation. Under this Act, the Dangerous Drugs Board
(DDB) remains as the policy-making and strategy-formulating body
in planning and formulation of policies and program on drug
prevention and control.
It also created the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
under the Office of the President, which serves as the implementing
arm of the DDB, shall be responsible for the efficient and effective
ambt law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals as provided in this Act.

One of the cases relating to the above law is People v. Radang

decided by the court on Feb. 20, 2017 wherein Salim was charged
with violation of Sections 5 and II, Article II of RA 9165 for selling
and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The twin
information instituted therefor alleged two Criminal cases against
him.
The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal is meritorious.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish the
following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor. What is important is that the
sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of
the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is
shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused.
On the other hand, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
following elements must be established: " [1] the accused was in
possession of dangerous drugs; such possession was not authorized
by law; and [3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of
being in possession of dangerous drugs."
In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus
delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the
integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have
been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this
function as it ensures that necessary doubts concerning the identity
of the evidence are removed."
After a careful examination of the records of the case, we find that
the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of
the seized drugs in violation of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
Moreover, In the case People v. Dilao, the facts are as follows:

A police informer called up the [DEU] Unit, Caloocan City Police

Station, told the police that an alias Philip was rampantly selling
shabu along Pangako St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The
informer also identified the drug pusher as Philip Dilao y Castro,
herein appellant. A buy-bust operation was then conducted, and
the appellant was caught. He countered the allegations against
him. The RTC found him guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article
II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. CA affirmed in toto the decision.

In this case, Since the appellant was found guilty of selling

"shabu" weighing 0.06 gram, absent any aggravating or
mitigating circumstance, the trial court correctly sentenced him
to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal
Case No. C-65963. Since he was also found guilty of possession
of "shabu" weighing 0.07 gram, absent any aggravating or
mitigating circumstance and in accordance with the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, he was correctly meted a prison term of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months
and a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) in
Criminal Case No. C-65964.

Moreover, in People v. Rivera, Accused-appelant questioned his

conviction on the ground that prosecution only relied on the
testimony of one witness and that there had been a gap in the
seizure and custody of the alleged evidence for failure of the
operatives to take inventory of the same and in violation of the
Dangerous Drug Act.

The Supreme Court takes pride in upholding a most fundamental

constitutional right which is the right of an accused in criminal
prosecutions to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. Thus, in order to justify the conviction of an
accused, the prosecution must adduce that quantum of evidence
sufficient to overcome this constitutional presumption of innocence.

The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the

other police officers forming a buy-bust team is not a crucial point
against the prosecution since the matter of presentation of
witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. It is the
prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case
and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as
witnesses. Moreover, the testimony of a single prosecution witness,
if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, is enough to sustain a
conviction.

Truth is established not by the quantity of witnesses but by the

quality of their testimonies. The testimony only needs to establish
sufficiently: (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment thereof.

The categorical and convincing testimonies of the policemen,

backed up by physical evidence, overcome the unsubstantiated
claim of ill-motive by appellant. Accused-appellant's guilt having
been established beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of
innocence in his favor is overturned.

Moreover, Accused-appellant's guilt having been established beyond

reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence in his favor is
overturned.

Under Republic Act No. 9165, the unauthorized sale of shabu carries
with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million
Pesos (P10,000,000.00).

Pursuant to the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, "An

Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,"
only life imprisonment and fine, instead of death, shall be imposed.

Furthermore, in the case of People v. Capalad, Accused-appellant

was charged with Violation of Sec. 5 [Sale] of Art. II, RA 9165,
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO1
JEFFRED PACIS one (1) small sealed transparent plastic sachet of
‘Shabu’ Methamphethamine Hydrochloride, with a weight of 0.04
[gram] x x x, a dangerous drug, without being authorized by law in
violation of said cited law.

The Supreme Court ruled that following the seizure of the three
plastic sachets from accused-appellant, PO1 Manansala turned over
the specimens to PO3 Moran, who marked the items "RCE-1" to
"RCE-3," "RCE" being the initials of accused-appellant "Reynaldo
Capalad y Esto." The specimens were turned over to the PNP Crime
Laboratory per request of Inspector Cruz. The examination was
assigned to Forensic Chemical Officer Dela Rosa who disclosed in
his Physical Sciences Report No. D-1384-03 that the specimens
tested positive for shabu. The second element was likewise
established through PO1 Pacis and PO1 Manansala’s testimonies
and the presentation of the buy-bust money recovered from
accused-appellant.

Based on the above findings, SC sustain accused-appellant’s

conviction.

As to the penalties imposed, Sec. 5 of Art. II, RA 9165 provides that

any person who sells any dangerous drug shall be punished with life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos (PhP 500,000) to ten million pesos (PhP
10,000,000). Sec. 11, Art. II of the same law punishes possession
of shabu of quantities less than five (5) grams with imprisonment of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine
ranging from three hundred thousand pesos (PhP 300,000) to four
hundred thousand pesos (PhP 400,000).

In the case Peopl v. Musa, the accused seeks the reversal of his
conviction for violating the Dangerous Drug Act. He was found guilty
of selling marijuana to a police officer in an entrapment operation.

The Supreme Court ruled that there is no doubt that the warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting officer
to make a search upon the person arrested. Hence, in a buy-bust
operation conducted to entrap a drug pusher, the law enforcement
agents may seize the marked money found on the person of the
pusher immediately after the arrest even without arrest or search
warrants.
Furthermore, it may extend beyond to include the premises or
surroundings under his immediate control.

The cases stated above have similar court decisions and

explanations. In Drug cases, it is a must that the elements are
considered and established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.