1. People of the Philippines v. Cipriano Cardenas y Gofrerica, G.R. No.

190342, March 21, 2012

FACTS:

At around 12 p.m. of 06 January 2003, the Detection and Special Operations Division of
the Criminal Investigation Division Group (DSOD-CIDG) in Camp Crame received a
report from its confidential informant regarding the rampant selling of shabu by a certain
Cipriano Cardenas (a.k.a. Ope) at the Payatas Area in Quezon City. Acting on the
information, a team was organized to conduct a buy-bust operation. Police Officer (PO)
3 Edgardo Palacio was head of the team and PO3 Rene Enteria was designated to act
as the poseur-buyer. They marked a ₱100 bill with the initials ERP on the lower right
portion of its dorsal side and used the money in the buy-bust operation. The team
agreed that upon the consummation of the sale, PO3 Enteria would throw away his
cigarette to signal the moment at which the drug pusher would be arrested.
 
The team proceeded to Lupang Pangako, Barangay Payatas, Quezon City to conduct
the buy-bust operation. At the site, PO3 Enteria was guided by the confidential
informant and closely followed by PO3 Palacio and two other team members. They
chanced upon the accused wearing camouflage pants and standing near a small house
located on a pathway. Approaching the accused, the informant introduced the police
officer as the person interested to buy shabu. PO3 Enteria was asked how much he
wanted to buy, and he answered ₱100. The accused then took out a clear plastic
sachet containing a white crystalline substance from his pocket and handed it to PO3
Enteria. After handing the marked ₱100 bill to the accused, the police officer threw
away his cigarette as a signal of the consummation of the buy-bust operation.
 
PO3 Palacio and the rest of the team, who were just 15 meters away from the scene,
immediately approached, arrested the accused, and frisked the latter. PO3 Palacio
recovered two (2) other clear plastic sachets from the accused’s right pocket. The three
sachets were marked CC-1, CC-2 and CC-3 CC representing the initials of the accused,
Cipriano Cardenas. He was then brought to Camp Crame, where he was booked and
investigated. The plastic sachets recovered from him were transmitted to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for analysis upon the request of Police Chief Inspector Ricardo N.
Sto. Domingo, Jr. of the DSODCIDG. The results of the Initial Laboratory Report dated
07 January 2003 showed that the white crystalline substance contained in the three (3)
heat-sealed plastic sachets tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride,
or shabu, with a total weight of 0.05 gram.
 
On 07 January 2003, an Information for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165,
was filed against the accused. The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
National Judicial Capital Region of Quezon City, Branch 103 and docketed as Criminal
Case No. Q-03-114312.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellate court committed reversible error in convicting the accused
for non-compliance with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous
drugs.

RULING:

Under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the elements that must be proven for the successful
prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and its payment. The State has the burden of proving these elements and is
obliged to present the corpus delicti in court to support a finding of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
xxx

Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its
IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended
persons, is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in
a buy-bust operation. (Emphasis supplied.)

In the instant case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs was
not broken. The testimony of PO3 Palacio shows that he was the one who recovered
from the accused the three plastic sachets of shabu, together with the marked money.
He also testified that he was the one who personally brought the request for
examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory and had the plastic sachets examined there.
During the trial of the case, he positively identified the plastic sachets that he had
recovered from the accused and had marked CC-1, CC-2 and CC-3.

xxx

From these testimonies of the police officers, the prosecution established that they had
custody of the drugs seized from the accused from the moment he was arrested, during
the time he was transported to the CIDG office in Camp Crame, and up to the time the
drugs were submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. The said police officers
also identified the seized drugs with certainty when these were presented in court. With
regard to the handling of the seized drugs, there are no conflicting testimonies or glaring
inconsistencies that would cast doubt on the integrity thereof as evidence presented
and scrutinized in court. To the unprejudiced mind, the testimonies show without a
doubt that the evidence seized from the accused at the time of the buy-bust operation
was the same one tested, introduced, and testified to in court. In short, there is no
question as to the integrity of the evidence.
 
Although we find that the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of
Section 21, Article II of the IRR implementing R.A. 9165, the noncompliance did not
affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the accused, because the chain of
custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the
case. We held thus in Zalameda v. People of the Philippines:

Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply with Section
21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accuseds arrest illegal
or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance
is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as
these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In
the present case, we see substantial compliance by the police with the required
procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items, thus showing that the
integrity of the seized evidence was not compromised. We refer particularly to the
succession of events established by evidence, to the overall handling of the seized
items by specified individuals, to the test results obtained, under a situation where no
objection to admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All these, to the unprejudiced
mind, show that the evidence seized were the same evidence tested and subsequently
identified and testified to in court. In People v. Del Monte, we explained:
 
“We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law,
particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs
confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence.
Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when
it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For
evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its
 reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject
only to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the courts. x x x”

xxx

The credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial
courts. The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on
the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge. Unlike
appellate magistrates, it is the judge who can weigh such testimonies in light of the
witnesses demeanor and manner of testifying, and who is in a unique position to discern
between truth and falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or
lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. This is especially
true when the trial courts findings have been affirmed by the appellate court. For them
the said findings are considered generally conclusive and binding upon this
Court, unless it be manifestly shown that the trial court had overlooked or arbitrarily
disregarded facts and circumstances of significance. Xxx

2. People of the Philippines v. Ramil Doria Dahil, et al, G.R. No. 212196, January 12,
2015

For a couple of weeks, the agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA),
Region 3, conducted surveillance and casing operations relative to the information they
received that a certain alias "Buddy" and alias "Mel" were trafficking dried marijuana in
TB Pavilion, Marisol Subdivision, Barangay Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City. On September
29, 2002, the Chief of PDEA formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. The team
was composed of four (4) police officers, namely, Sergeant Juanito dela Cruz (Sergeant
dela Cruz), as team leader; and PO2 Corpuz, SPO1 Licu and PO2 Javiar, as members.
PO2 Corpuz was designated as the poseur-buyer while SPO1 Licu was assigned as his
back-up.

The team proceeded to the target place at around 8:00 o’clock in the evening. Upon
arriving, PO2 Corpuz together with the informant went to the house of Dahil which was
within the TB Pavillon compound. When PO2 Corpuz and the informant were in front of
the house, they met Dahil and Castro. The informant then introduced PO2 Corpuz as
the buyer of marijuana. Dahil asked PO2 Corpuz how much would he be buying and the
latter answered that he would buy ₱200.00 worth of marijuana. At this juncture, Dahil
took out from his pocket six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana and handed them to PO2
Corpuz. After checking the items, PO2 Corpuz handed two (2) ₱100.00 marked bills to
Castro.

Immediately thereafter, PO2 Cruz took off his cap to signal that the sale had been
consummated. The rest of the buy-bust team then rushed to their location and arrested
Castro and Dahil. PO2 Corpuz frisked Dahil and recovered from his possession another
five (5) plastic sachets containing marijuana while SPO1 Licu searched the person of
Castro and confiscated from him one (1) brick of suspected marijuana.

Both Castro and Dahil, together with the confiscated drugs, were then brought by the
buy-bust team to the PDEA office. There, the seized items were marked by PO2 Corpuz
and SPO1Licu. First, the six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana which were sold by Dahil to
PO2 Corpuz were marked with "A-1" to "A-6" and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC" and
"EML." Second, the five (5) plastic sachets recovered from Dahil were marked with "B-
1" to "B-5" and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC" and "EML." Finally, the marijuana brick
confiscated from Castro was marked "C-RDRC." Sergeant dela Cruz then prepared the
request for laboratory examination, affidavits of arrest and other pertinent documents.
An inventory of the seized items7 was also prepared which was signed by Kagawad
Pamintuan. Thereafter, PO2 Corpuz brought the confiscated drugs to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination, which subsequently yielded
positive results for marijuana.

The prosecution and defense entered into stipulation as to the essential contents of the
prospective testimony of the forensic chemist, to wit:
1. That a laboratory examination request was prepared by PO3 Dela Cruz;
2. That said letter request for laboratory examination was sent to the PNP Crime
Laboratory,Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga;
3. That Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran David is a forensic chemist;
4. That said forensic chemist conducted an examination on the substance subject of the
letter request with qualification that said request was not subscribedor under oath and
that the forensic chemist has no personal knowledge as from whom and where said
substance was taken;
5. That the result of the laboratory examination is embodied in Chemistry Report No. D-
0518-2002; and
6. The findings and conclusion thereof.

The prosecution was ordered to formally offer its evidence on March 7, 2007.  After
much delay, the public prosecutor was finally able to orally submit his formal offer of
exhibits after almost two years, or on January 6, 2009. He offered the following
documentary evidence: (1) Joint Affidavit of Arrest, (2) Custodial Investigation Report,
(3) Photocopy of the marked money, (4) Brown envelope containing the subject illegal
drugs, (5) Inventory of Property Seized, (6) Laboratory Examination Request, and (7)
Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Chain of Custody Rule was complied with.

RULING:
The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not
indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous
drugs. As such, the identity of the dangerous drugs should be established beyond doubt
by showing that the items offered in court were the same substances bought during the
buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement, known under R.A. No. 9165 as the chain
of custody, performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the
identity of the evidence are removed. In People v. Catalan, the Court said:

To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,
therefore, the Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti. That proof is vital to a
judgment of conviction. On the other hand, the Prosecution does not comply with the
indispensable requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165
when the dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are substantial gapsin the
chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity
of the evidence presented in court.

Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of chain of custody, Section 1(b)
of Dangerous DrugsBoard Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No.
9165, explains the said term as follows:

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.
As a means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of
R.A. No. 9165 specifies that:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photographthe
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.
Specifically, Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)of

R.A. No. 9165 enumerates the procedures to be observed by the apprehending officers
to confirm the chain of custody, to wit:
xxx
(a) The apprehending officer/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:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrantis served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items;

xxx

The strict procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not complied with.

Although the prosecution offered in evidence the Inventory of the Property Seized
signed by the arresting officers and Kagawad Pamintuan, the procedures provided in
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not observed. The said provision requires the
apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation, to immediately (1) conduct a
physically inventory; and (2) photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/orseized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.

First, the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted after seizure and
confiscation as it was only done at the police station. Notably, Article II, Section 21(a) of
the IRR allows the inventory to be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending team whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures. In this case, however, the prosecution did not even claim that the PDEA Office
Region 3 was the nearest office from TB Pavilion where the drugs were seized. The
prosecution also failed to give sufficient justification for the delayed conduct of the
inventory.

Xxx

Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the rigorous requirements of

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, jurisprudence dictates that substantial compliance is
sufficient. Failure to strictly comply with the law does not necessarily render the arrest of
the accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The issue
of non-compliance with the said section is not of admissibility, but of weight to be given
on the evidence. Moreover, Section 21 of the IRR requires "substantial" and not
necessarily "perfect adherence," as long as it can be proven that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved,
the proper chain of custody of the seized items must be shown. The Court explained in
People v. Malillin how the chain of custody or movement of the seized evidence should
be maintained and why this must be shown by evidence, viz:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

In People v. Kamad, the Court identified the links that the prosecution must establish in
the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth,
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to
the court.

Xxx

First link: Marking of the Drugs Recovered from the Accused by the Apprehending
Officer

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other
related items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking"
means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and
signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial
link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking
of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other
similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are
disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting
or contamination of evidence.

It must be noted that marking is not found in R.A. No. 9165 and is different from the
inventory-taking and photography under Section 21 of the said law. Long before
Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, however, this Court had consistently held that failure
of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on
the authenticity of the corpus delicti.

Xxx

Similarly, in People v. Garcia, the Court considered the belated marking of the seized
drug by the apprehending officer in acquitting the accused in the case. The officer
testified that he marked the confiscated items only after he had returned to the police
station. Such admission showed that the marking was not done immediately after the
seizure of the items, but after the lapse of a significant intervening time.

Xxx

Second Link: Turnover of the Seized Drugs by the Apprehending Officer to the
Investigating Officer

The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who seizes
the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by
courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. This is a necessary step in the chain of
custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper
investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case.
Certainly, the investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly
prepare the required documents.

Xxx

In People v. Remigio, the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the
chain of custody as the apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the
investigating officer. The apprehending officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of
confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist. The deviation
from the links in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said case.

Third Link: Turnover by the Investigating Officer of the Illegal Drugs to the Forensic
Chemist

From the investigating officer, the illegal drug is delivered to the forensic chemist. Once
the seized drugs arrive at the forensic laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who
will test and verify the nature of the substance. Xxx

Xxx

Fourth Link: Turnover of the Marked Illegal Drug Seized by the Forensic Chemist to the
Court.

The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the
court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. No testimonial or documentary
evidence was given whatsoever as to how the drugs were kept while in the custody of
the forensic chemist until it was transferred to the court. The forensic chemist should
have personally testified on the safekeeping of the drugs but the parties resorted to a
general stipulation of her testimony. Although several subpoenae were sent to the
forensic chemist, only a brown envelope containing the seized drugs arrived in
court. Sadly, instead of focusing on the essential links in the chain of custody, the
prosecutor propounded questions concerning the location of the misplaced marked
money, which was not even indispensable in the criminal case.

Xxx

3. People of the Philippines v. Salim Ismael Y Radang, G.R. No. 208093,

February 20, 2017.

FACTS:
On August 25, 2003, at around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a confidential informant
reported to SPO4 Menardo Araneta [SPO4 Araneta], Chief of the Intelligence Division of
the Culianan Police Station 4 [at Zamboanga City], that a certain "Ismael Salim" was
engaged in selling shabu at Barangay Talabaan near the Muslim [c]emetery [in that
city].

To verify the report, SPO4 Araneta instructed the said informant to [monitor] the area.
After the informant confirmed that the said Ismael Salim was indeed selling illegal drugs
in the reported area, SPO4 Araneta formed a buy-bust team composed of SPO1
Enriquez, SPO1 Eduardo N. Rodriguez (SPO1 Rodriguez), SPO1 Roberto A. Santiago
(SPO1 Santiago) and PO2 Rodolfo Dagalea Tan (PO2 Tan). It was then agreed that
SPO1 Santiago would act as poseur buyer with SPO1 Rodriguez as back-up. For the
purpose, SPO4 Araneta gave SPO1 Santiago a [P100] bill bearing Serial No. M419145
as marked money [to be used] in the buy-bust operation.

Upon arrival at Barangay Talabaan, the team parked their service vehicle along the
road. SPO1 Santiago, the confidential informant and SPO1 Rodriguez alighted from the
vehicle and walked towards the [area fronting] the Muslim cemetery. As they
approached the area, the informant pointed to a man wearing a brown T-shirt and black
short pants with white towel around his neck [whom he identified] as appellant Ismael
Salim, the target of the operation.
SPO1 Santiago then [walked] towards appellant and [told] the latter that he [wanted] to
buy shabu; to this appellant replied "how much?" SPO1 Santiago answered that he
[wanted to buy P100.00 worth of the shabu, and gave appellant] the P100.00 marked
money; [whereupon appellant] took from his left pocket one plastic sachet containing a
white crystalline substance [which he] handed over to SPO1 Santiago.

Upon seeing the exchange, SPO1 Rodriguez, who was positioned [some 10] meters
away, rushed in and arrested appellant[.] SPO1 Rodriguez made a precautionary
search of appellant's body for any concealed weapon[, and found none]. Instead, SPO1
Rodriguez found, tucked inside [appellant's left front pocket the P100.00] marked money
and two (2) more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance wrapped in a
golden cigarette paper.

The police officers then brought appellant to the Culianan Police Station [in Zamboanga
City] with SPO1 Santiago keeping personal custody of the items confiscated from [him].
At the [police] station, the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance subject
of the buy-bust operation, the two (2) plastic sachets also containing white crystalline
substance[, and the P100.00] marked money bearing Serial No. M419145 recovered
from appellant's left pocket, were respectively turned over by SPO1 Santiago and SPO1
Rodriguez to the Desk Officer, PO3 Floro Napalcruz [PO3 Napalcruz], who likewise
turned [these over] to the Duty Investigator, [PO2 Tan]. PO2 Tan then placed his initial
"RDT” on the items recovered from appellant.

PO2 Tan also prepared a request to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory 9, [at]
Zamboanga City for laboratory examination of the plastic sachet containing the white
crystalline substance subject of the sale between appellant and SPO1 Santiago, and
the other two (2) plastic sachet[s] found inside appellant's pocket by SPO1 Rodriguez.
After conducting qualitative examination on the said specimens, Police Chief Inspector
[PCI] Mercedes D. Diestro, Forensic Chemist [Forensic Chemist Diestro], issued
Chemistry Report No. D-367-2003 dated August 25, 2003, finding [the above-
mentioned] plastic sachets positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a
dangerous drug.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Chain of Custody Rule was observed.

RULING:
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; [2] 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."12
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.

The pertinent provisions of Section 21 state:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered

Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs. Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) 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;

Similarly, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) further elaborate on the proper
procedure to be followed in Section 21(a) of RA 9165. It states:

(a) The apprehending office/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:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirement" under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items;

In Mallillin v. People, the Court explained the chain of custody rule as follows:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
(Emphasis supplied)

The first link in the chain is the marking of the seized drug. We have previously held
that:

x x x Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the
seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the
specimen will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to
separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence
from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of
the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, ‘planting,’ or contamination of evidence. It
is important that the seized drugs be immediately marked, if possible, as soon as they
are seized from the accused.

Furthermore, in People v. Gonzales, the Court explained that:

The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or
related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by
the apprehending officer or the poseur buyer of his initials or signature or other
identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator
immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied,
because succeeding handlers of dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking
as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs
or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are
disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching,
planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon
confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the
preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.

Xxx

Due to the apparent breaks in the chain of custody, it was possible that the seized item
subject of the sale transaction was switched with the seized items subject of the illegal
possession case. This is material considering that the imposable penalty for illegal
possession of shabu depends on the quantity or weight of the seized drug.

Aside from the failure to mark the seized drugs immediately upon arrest, the arresting
officers also failed to show that the marking of the seized drugs was done in the
presence of the appellant. This requirement must not be brushed aside as a mere
technicality. It must be shown that the marking was done in the presence of the accused
to assure that the identity and integrity of the drugs were properly preserved. Failure to
comply with this requirement is fatal to the prosecution's case.

The requirements of making an inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drugs
were likewise omitted without offering an explanation for its non-compliance. This break
in the chain tainted the integrity of the seized drugs presented in court; the very identity
of the seized drugs became highly questionable.

Xxx

4. People of the Philippines v. Fernando Ranche Havana, G.R. No. 198450,

January 11, 2016.

FACTS:

On the afternoon of November 4, 2005, a civilian informant, one "Droga", went to Police
Station 10, Punta Princesa, Cebu City and reported to the duty officer SPO1 Vicente R.
Espenido, Jr. (SPO1 Espenido) that the appellant was actively engaged in the illegal
drug trade at Sitio Mangga, Punta Princesa, Cebu City. SPO1 Espenido immediately
assembled a buy-bust team, with him as the team leader, the civilian asset and with
PO2 Enriquez, SPO1 Canete, and SPO1 Jasper C. Nuñez (PO2 Nuñez) as back-up.
The police team designated the unnamed "civilian informant" as poseur-buyer and
provided him with a PI00.00 marked money bill, with its serial number (SN003332)
noted in the police blotter, 7 to be used for the purpose of buying shabu from appellant.
The buy-bust operation was allegedly coordinated with the Office of the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA).8 When the police team reached the target area, the
"civilian informant" went to the house of appellant and called the latter. Hidden from
view, some 15 meters away from the house, the back-up operatives, PO2 Enriquez and
SPO1 Canete, saw the civilian informant talking with the appellant. Not long after, they
saw the "civilian informant" handling over the marked PI00.00 bill to the appellant, who
in exchange gave to the former a plastic pack containing 0.03 gram white crystalline
substance which these two suspected as shabu. The "civilian informant" then placed a
face towel on his left shoulder to signal that the sale had been consummated. SPO1
Espenido and his two companions rushed towards the "civilian informant" and the
appellant and arrested the latter after apprising him of his constitutional rights. SPO1
Espenido recovered the P100.00 marked money from the appellant while the plastic
pack was given by the "civilian informant" to SPO1 Espenido.

The appellant was taken to the police station for investigation. The P100.00 marked
money and the plastic pack containing the suspected shabu were turned over to SPO2
Nuñez who marked the plastic pack with "FA" the initials of herein appellant. He then
prepared a letter requesting for examination 9 of the item seized from the appellant
addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory. PCI Salinas, a forensic chemist of the PNP
Crime Laboratory of Brgy. Apas, Cebu City, testified that he conducted a laboratory
examination of the recovered specimen 10 that yielded "positive result for the presence of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.”

The appellant denied that he was a shabu-seller; he also denied that he was arrested in
a buy-bust operation. He claimed that on that evening of November 4, 2005 he was
eating bread when SPO2 Nuñez barged inside his house, handcuffed him and brought
him to the police precinct. He claimed that he was mistaken for his neighbor "Narding"
the real shabu-seller. His daughter, Maria Theresa, corroborated him.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Chain of Custody Rule was observed.

RULING:

"In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be
duly established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." The dangerous
drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence
beyond reasonable doubt plus the fact of its delivery and/or sale are both vital and
essential to a judgment of conviction in a criminal case. And more than just the fact of
sale, "[o]f prime importance therefore x x x is that the identity of the dangerous drug be
likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established
with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence
against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain of
custody requirement performs this function in that in ensures that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."

The Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, defines chain of custody
as "duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage,
from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping,
to presentation in court for destruction."

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

While the testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is
almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes
indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not
readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when
a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard obtains in case the
evidence is susceptible of alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution
and exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration
or tampering -without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not -
dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain or custody rule.

Xxx

"[W]hile the chain of custody should ideally be perfect [and unbroken], in reality it is not,
'as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.” As such, what is of
utmost importance "is 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." In
the case at bench, this Court finds it exceedingly difficult to believe that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the drug have been properly preserved by the apprehending
officers. The inexplicable failure of the police officers to testify as to what they did with
the alleged drug while in their respective possession resulted in a breach or break in the
chain of custody of the drug. In some cases, the Court declared that the failure of the
prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete
chain of custody of the shabu plus the irregular manner which plagued the handling of
the evidence before the same was offered in court, whittles down the chances of the
government to obtain a successful prosecution in a drug-related case.

Here, apart from the utter failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of
custody, yet another procedural lapse casts further uncertainty about the identity and
integrity of the subject shabu. We refer to the non-compliance by the buy-bust team with
the most rudimentary procedural safeguards relative to the custody and disposition of
the seized item under Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165. Here, the alleged
apprehending team after the alleged initial custody and control of the drug, and after
immediately seizing and confiscating the same, never ever made a physical inventory of
the same, nor did it ever photograph the same in the presence of the appellant from
whom the alleged item was confiscated. There was no physical inventory and
photograph of the item allegedly seized from appellant. Neither was there any
explanation offered for such failure.

While this Court in certain cases has tempered the mandate of strict compliance with
the requisite under Section 21 of RA 9165, 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 as we stressed in People v. Guru. In the
case at bar, the evidentiary value and integrity of the alleged illegal drug had been
thoroughly compromised. Serious uncertainty is generated on the identity of the item in
view of the broken linkages in the chain of custody. In this light, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty accorded the buy-bust team by the courts
below cannot arise.

5. Amado I. Saraum v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 205472, January 25,
2016.

FACTS:

On August 17, 2006, a telephone call was received by PO3 Larrobis regarding the
illegal drug activities in Sitio Camansi, Barangay Lorega, Cebu City. A buy-bust team
was then formed composed of PO3 Larrobis, PO1 Jumalon, PO2 Nathaniel Sta. Ana,
PO1 Roy Cabahug, and PO1 Julius Aniñon against a certain "Pata." PO2 Sta. Ana was
designated as the poseur-buyer accompanied by the informant, PO1 Jumalon as the
back-up of PO2 Sta. Ana, and the rest of the team as the perimeter security. PO1
Aniñon coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) regarding the
operation. After preparing all the necessary documents, such as the pre-operation
report and submitting the same to the PDEA, the team proceeded to the subject area.

During the operation, "Pata" eluded arrest as he tried to run towards his shanty.
Inside the house, which was divided with a curtain as partition, the buy-bust team
also saw Saraum and Peter Espcranza, who were holding drug paraphernalia
apparently in preparation to have a "shabu" pot session. They recovered from
Saraum's possession a lighter, rolled tissue paper, and aluminum tin foil (tooter).
PO3 Larrobis confiscated the items, placed them in the plastic pack of misua
wrapper, and made initial markings ("A" for Saraum and "P" for Esperanza). At
the police station, PO3 Larrobis marked as "AIS-08-17-2006" the paraphernalia
recovered from Saraum. After the case was filed, the subject items were turned
over to the property custodian of the Office of City Prosecutor.

ISSUE: Whether or not

RULING:

The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other

paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (1)
possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other
paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting,
or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not
authorized by law. In this case, the prosecution has convincingly established that
Saraum was in possession of drug paraphernalia, particularly aluminum tin foil, rolled
tissue paper, and lighter, all of which were offered and admitted in evidence.

Xxx

In ascertaining the identity of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia presented in
court as the ones actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must show that: (a)
the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been
complied with or falls within the saving clause provided in Section 21 (a), Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) there was an
unbroken link (not perfect link) in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated
items.

Although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team must
immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph them,
non-compliance therewith is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground and as long
as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending team. While nowhere in the prosecution evidence show
the "justifiable ground" which may excuse the police operatives involved in the buy-bust
operation from making the physical inventory and taking a photograph of the drug
paraphernalia confiscated and/or seized, such omission shall not render Saraum's
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence. Said
"justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of the apparent failure of Saraum to
specifically challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and
preservation of the subject drug paraphernalia before the trial court. He cannot be
allowed too late in the day to question the police officers' alleged non-compliance with
Section 21 for the first time on appeal.
The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who handled the
confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the
illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized from the accused
until the time they are presented in court. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, implementing R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of custody
as follows:

Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.

In Mallillin v. People, the Court discussed how the chain of custody of seized items
should be established, thus:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken lo ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

While the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality,
it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. 24 Thus, failure to strictly
comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an
accused person's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.
x x x Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it
is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be
inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such
law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that
will be accorded it by the courts. x x x

We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about
the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance
with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight - evidentiary merit or probative
value to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence
depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.
The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items. In this case, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug paraphernalia had not been compromised
because it established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized items from
the time they were first discovered until they were brought to the court for examination.
Even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and
photograph of the drug paraphernalia, this will not render Saraum's arrest illegal or the
items seized from him inadmissible. There is substantial compliance by the police as to
the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items. The
succession of events established by evidence and the overall handling of the seized
items by specified individuals all show that the evidence seized were the same evidence
subsequently identified and testified to in open court.

Xxx

Settled is the rule that, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence
have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted, the findings
and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great
respect and will not be disturbed because it has the advantage of hearing the witnesses
and observing their deportment and manner of testifying.

6. People of the Philippines vs. Jeric Pavia Y Paliza and Juan Buendia Y Delos
Reyes. G.R. No.202687, January 14, 2015.

FACTS: At around 9:00PM, the team arrived at the target area. The house was not
fenced, so PO2 Bautista approached the house and peeped through a small opening in
the window. He saw four persons in a circle having a shabu pot session. The team
proceeded inside the house, introduced themselves as police officers and arrested the
four. Among those arrested were appellant Jeric Pavia, and Juan Buendia. They seized
the shabu and other paraphernalias therein, marked the drugs and were transmitted to
the crime laboratory for examination. Consequently, appellants were charged with
violation of Section 13, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs
during Parties, Social Gatherings, or Meetings).

In defense, appellants provided a different version of the incident. According to them, on

the questioned date and time, they were roaming the streets of Barangay Cuyab, selling
star apples. A prospective buyer of the fruits called them over to his house and
requested them to go inside, to which they acceded. When they were about to leave the
house, several persons who introduced themselves as policemen arrived and invited
appellants to go with them to the precinct. There, they were incarcerated and falsely
charged with violation of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002.

ISSUE:

RULING:

 "On the first issue, the Court held that the warrantless arrest is valid. Paragraph (a) of
Section 5 is commonly known as an in flagrante delicto arrest. For a warrantless arrest
of an accused caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the
person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done
in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

After a careful evaluation of the evidence in its totality, we hold that the prosecution
successfully established that the petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto. A warrant
of arrest cannot be obtained immediately judging from the surrounding circumstances,
as the pot session/ crime may well be done before the warrant be issued. The “time
element” was considered here by the Court."

On the second issue concerning the Chain of Custody of the shabu, the Court admitted
the evidence presented and stated there was no defect in the chain of custody of the
shabu. The said evidences were presented before the Court, to which P02 Bautista
positively identified as the shabu they confiscated. The appellants did not contest this.

The Court has this to say:

“What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused. In the present case, we see substantial compliance by the
police with the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items,
thus showing that the integrity of the seized evidence was not compromised. We refer
particularly to the succession of events established by evidence, to the overall handling
of the seized items by specified individuals, to the test results obtained, under a
situation where no objection to admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All these,
to the unprejudiced mind, show that the evidence seized were the same evidence
tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court”.

7. People of the Philippines v. Darwin Relato y Ajero, G.R. No. 173794, January 18,
2012.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides the procedure to be followed in the

seizure and custody of prohibited drugs, to wit:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered

Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. ̶ The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) 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;
xxx

The provisions of Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 provide:

xxx
(a) The apprehending office/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:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items;
xxx
A review of the records establishes that the aforestated procedure laid down by
Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR was not followed. Several lapses on the part of the
buy-bust team are readily apparent. To start with, no photograph of the
seized shabu was taken. Secondly, the buy-bust team did not immediately mark the
seized shabu at the scene of the crime and in the presence of Relato and witnesses.
Thirdly, although there was testimony about the marking of the seized items being made
at the police station, the records do not show that the marking was done in the presence
of Relato or his chosen representative. And, fourthly, no representative of the media
and the Department of Justice, or any elected official attended the taking of the physical
inventory and to sign the inventory.

Under the foregoing rules, the marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in
the custodial link, because succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or related items
will use the markings as reference. It further serves to segregate the marked evidence
from the corpus of all other similar and related evidence from the time they are seized
from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, “planting,” or contamination of evidence. It is crucial in ensuring the
integrity of the chain of custody, which is defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, thus:

b. “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition;

While the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR provides a saving mechanism to
ensure that not every case of non-compliance irreversibly prejudices the State’s
evidence, it is significant to note that the application of the saving mechanism to a
situation is expressly conditioned upon the State rendering an explanation of the lapse
or lapses in the compliance with the procedures. Here, however, the Prosecution
tendered no explanation why the buy-bust team had failed to mark the seized shabu
immediately after the arrest. Nevertheless, even assuming that marking the shabu at
the scene of the crime by the buy-bust team had not been practical or possible for the
buy-bust team to do, the saving mechanism would still not be applicable due to the lack
of a credible showing of any effort undertaken by the buy-bust team to keep the  shabu
intact while in transit to the police station.

The procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team underscored the uncertainty
about the identity and integrity of the shabu admitted as evidence against the
accused. They highlighted the failure of the Prosecution to establish the chain of
custody, by which the incriminating evidence would have been authenticated. An
unavoidable consequence of the non-establishment of the chain of custody was the
serious doubt on whether the shabu presented as evidence was really the shabu
supposedly seized from Relato.

In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride

prohibited under Republic Act No. 9165, the State not only carries the heavy burden of
proving the elements of the offense of, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus
delicti, failing in which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish
the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or
when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave
doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in
court. Any gap renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, Relato deserves exculpation,
especially as we recall that his defense of frame-up became plausible in the face of the
weakness of the Prosecution’s evidence of guilt.

8. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DANTE L. DUMALAG G.R. No. 180514

April 17, 2013

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered

Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(a) The apprehending officer/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;
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items x x x. (Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 9165 on the handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs)

It has already been settled that the failure of police officers to mark the items seized
from an accused in illegal drugs cases immediately upon its confiscation at the place of
arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the
confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. In People v. Resurreccion, the Court
explained that “marking” of the seized items “immediately after seizure and confiscation”
may be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as
it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. It was further
emphasized that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The Court elaborated in this wise:

Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not
automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.

The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165 does not necessarily
render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused.

As we held in People v. Cortez, testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.

Accused-appellant broaches the view that SA Isidoro’s failure to mark the confiscated
shabu immediately after seizure creates a reasonable doubt as to the drug’s identity.
People v. Sanchez, however, explains that RA 9165 does not specify a time frame for
“immediate marking,” or where said marking should be done:

What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is
the matter of “marking” of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the
evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and
photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the
place of arrest. Consistency with the “chain of custody” rule requires that the “marking”
of the seized items – to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain
and are eventually the ones offered in evidence – should be done (1) in the presence of
the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.

To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is required is that the
marking be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation.
“Immediate confiscation” has no exact definition. Thus, in People v. Gum-Oyen,
testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the
presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of
custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the
nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. (Emphases supplied, citations
omitted.)

There is no question herein that the confiscated sachets of shabu and related
paraphernalia were inventoried and marked in the presence of accused-appellant at the
police station where he was brought right after his arrest.