People v Zakaria (PS.
sorry ang haba, medyo relevant kasi yung case) detained in a small room before being shown sachets of shabu supposedly
Topic: Admissibility of Evidence
Doctrine: The chain of custody is crucial in establishing the link between the shabu
confiscated from the accused and the evidence presented to the court for its
appreciation. The corpus delicti was not credibly proven because the Prosecution did not
establish an unbroken chain of custody, resulting in rendering the seizure and
confiscation of the shabu open to doubt and suspicion. Hence, the incriminatory
evidence should not pass judicial scrutiny.
Facts:
(1) Version of the prosecution:
- PO2 Aninias declared that a confidential informant went to the PDEA Office on
Camp Vicente Lim in Laguna and informed the Chief Supt. That he had entered
into a drug deal for 35g of shabu worth P98k with accused herein Sps Danny
and Joana to take place in Taguig. On the basis of such information, a buy-bust
team was formed with PO2 Aninias as poseur-buyer. P500 bill was given to
Aninias, who wrote his initials LLA on the bill, and then placed the marked bill
on the bundle of boodle money that seemingly amounted to P98k, placed
inside a white envelope.
- After surveying the target area to confirm the drug activities, the confidential
informant contracted Danny to tell him that he had a buyer. They agreed to
have the deal at the target area. A pre-operation report was then prepared
and coordinated with the PDEA National Office.
- Using a Toyota Revo and Mitsubishi Adventure, the buy bust team arrived at
the target area. Not long after, Danny arrived and got on board the Revo,
which was driven by Aninias. Aninias was introduced to Danny as the buyer.
Danny said that the shabu was with his wife Joana, and got out of the Revo to
fetch her. Later, the sps returned and Danny pulled 3 sachets of white
crystalline substance from his pocket and handed it over to Aninias, who
turned over the white window envelope to Joana and forthwith made a
missed call to PO3 Valdez, signaling the consummation of the transaction. As
Danny was about to count the money, Aninias drew and pointed his gun at the
sps and the rest of the team rushed in and arrested them.
- Aninias immediately placed his initials on the 3 sachets of shabu while Valdez
recovered the boodle money from Joana. The team brought the sps to Camp
Vicente for investigation while Aninias turned over the seized sachets to PNP
crime lab, which yielded positive results of the drug.
(2) Version of defense
- Joana alleged, and Danny corroborated, that on the said date, she went to
fetch her daughter from school and upon arriving home, she noticed her
husband lying face down inside their bedroom with several men around him,
one of them stepping on his head. The men then brought the sps to Camp
Vicente Lim on board the Revo driven by Aninias, and Valdez demanded 100k
in exchange for their release. She failed to give the money and they were
recovered from them. She protested and argued that they were not selling
shabu.
(3) RTC: Convicted both accused for violation of Sec 5 of RA 9165 (illegal sale of
dangerous drugs)
(4) CA: Affirmed.
(5) Only Danny filed a timely notice of appeal, resulting in the CA decision becoming
final and executory as to Joana.
(6) Danny alleged:
- Members of the buy-bust team did not fully explain to him his constitutional
rights
- State did not establish the origin of the seized drugs and did not prove the
chain of custody had been observed
- Guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt
Issue: W/N the chain of custody rule was observed as to credibly prove the corpus delicti.
(NO)
Held:
(1) In every prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the presentation of the
seized dangerous drugs as evidence in court is indispensable. It is essential that the
identity of the drugs be established beyond reasonable doubt; that the drugs
bought during the buy-bust ope are the same ones offered in court. The chain of
custody requirement performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. Moreover, to discharged its
overall duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the State
bears the burden of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime, which is not
complied if there doubts as to the authenticity or there are gaps in the chain of
custody.
(2) In People v Belocura:
- The chain of custody req applied by virtue of the universal need to
competently and sufficiently establish the corpus delicti. It is basic under the
ROC that evidence, to be relevant, must have a logical relation to the facts in
issue to be established by one party or disproved by the other.
- The test of relevancy is whether an item of evidence will have any value, as
determined by logic and experience, in proving the proposition for which it is
offered, or whether it would reasonably and actually tend to prove or disprove
any matter if fact in issue, or corroborate other relevant evidence.
- The test is satisfied if there is a logical connection either directly or by
inference between the fact offered and the fact to be proved.
(3) Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized dangerous drugs
and related items immediately after they are seized, for it is the starting point in the
custodial link. The value of marking of the evidence is to separate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of
seizure until disposition, preventing switching or contaminating evidence. Failure to
mark imperils integrity of chain of custody.
- The records show that the buy bust ope did not observe the mandatory
procedures in RA 9165. Although Aninias supposedly marked the shabu with
his initials, he DID NOT do so in the presence of the accused or their
representatives and any representatives from the media and DOJ, or any
elected public official. In fact, the POs admitted to such. Instead, the media
were only around in the PDEA Regional headquarters.
- The certificate of inventory, although signed by a media rep and brgy official,
was nonetheless discredited by Aninias’ admission that only confident
informant and members of the team were present at the time of recovery.
- Another serious lapse was that no photographs were taken of the shabu upon
seizure. This is another means to confirm the chain of custody of the drugs.
- Moreover, no explanation was offered as to lapses in procedure committed
by the POs. They did not even recognize such lapses.
o Hence, the non-compliance for preserving the chain of custody left the
identity of the shabu ambiguous.

Fallo: Danny is ACQUITTED.