People of the Philippines v Asjali,

G.R. No. 216430, September 3, 2018

First Division, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Chain of Custody in drugs cases need to be followed

strictly; First Link: Marking and Photograph of seized
drugs need to be done immediately;

Asjali (accused) assails the decision of the CA, which affirmed his
conviction for sale and possession of illegal drugs (shabu).
Accused argues that the alleged entrapment operation was
dubious, since the chain of custody, specifically the First Link,
was not followed by the apprehending Police Officers. Contrary to
what the Police Officers claim, Accused pleads that he was
merely playing “tong-its” at the time he was arbitrarily captured
by the Officers. It was established that Marking of the seized
drugs only happened inside the Police Station, and did not occur
immediately after seizure. Likewise, there were no photographs
taken, neither was an inventory receipt issued. Hence, Accused
begs this court for acquittal.

Based on the foregoing facts, should Asjali (Accused) be

acquitted?

YES. Acquittal is proper, due to the fact that the Chain of

Custody, specifically the First Link, was not properly done.
The corpus delicti is established by proof that the identity and
integrity of the prohibited or regulated drug seized or confiscated
from the accused has been preserved; hence, the prosecution
must establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the
dangerous drug to prove its case against the accused. The links
that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust
situation are as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turn over of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer; third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and fourth, the turn over and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.||| 

The markings on the drugs, purportedly seized or confiscated

from Accused, were done not by any of the members of the buy-
buys team who apprehended Accused, but by another officer, at
the police station where Accused was brought after his arrest. To
add, there is totally no proof that the markings were done in the
presence of Accused. Hence, acquittal is proper.