Chain of Custody

1. In People v. Kamad40 and People v. Dahil,41 this Court enumerated the links that the

prosecution must establish in the chain of custody of 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.

The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer. 42 The investigating officer shall conduct the
proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the proper transfer of the
evidence to the police crime laboratory for testing. Thus, the investigating officer's
possession of the seized drugs must be documented and established. 43

The name of the investigator must be identified or mentioned. Th persons to whom the
seized items were turned over upon reaching the police station must be specified.

The specific person who handled the seized items for the preparation of the required
documents must be named in the records

When the apprehending officer is unable to identify the investigating officer to whom he
turned over the seized items, such circumstance, taken in light of the several other lapses in
the chain of custody that attend the case, raises doubts as to whether the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs had been preserved.

2. Third Link

The third link in the chain of custody is the delivery by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug 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.

The seized items must be delivered to the crime laboratory.  There must be an apparent
1âшphi1

transfer of the seized items from apprehending officer to investigating officer. Then
informative details must be provided as to how, and at what point, the seized items were
handed the investigating officer especially the latter is not a member of the buy bust team.

There must also be an information on the condition of the seized items when seizing officer
transmitted the same investigating officer, and to the forensic chemist
 Documentary evidence must be submitted indicating that investigating officer had actual
receipt of the seized items and how the latter handled the same upon his receipt thereof
before transmitting the same to forensic chemist for forensic examination.

Fourth Link

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. There must be testimonial or documentary
evidence on how forensic chemist kept the seized items while it was in his / her custody and
in what condition the items were in until it was presented in court.

The records must also show what happened to the allegedly seized shabu between the
turnover by the chemist to the investigator and its presentation in court.

Thus, since no precautions were taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition
of the object and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession thereof,
the accused therein was acquitted.

In view of the foregoing lapses in the chain of custody and the lack of compliance with Sec.
21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, appellant's acquittal is only proper.

Serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the corpus delicti that the prosecution
introduced into evidence in order to convict appellant. In effect, the prosecution as no
evidence against appellant given that the circumstances surrounding the handling of the
seized items cast doubt on their source, identity, and integrity.

3. In particular, the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the
confiscated item: 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 from the forensic chemist to the
court.  35

4. In People v. Pajarin,  the Court ruled that in case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense
39

with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the
forensic chemist would have testified that he took the precautionary steps required in order
to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic
chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he
resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the
same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. 40

5. Clear from the foregoing is the lack of the stipulations required for the proper and effective
dispensation of the testimony of the forensic chemist. While the stipulations between the
 parties herein may be viewed as referring to the handling of the specimen at the forensic
laboratory and to the analytical results obtained, they do not cover the manner the specimen
was handled before it came to the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left her
possession.   Absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of
42

the illegal drug allegedly seized herein after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the
chain of custody of the said illegal drug could not be reasonably established.

6. These provisions embody the chain of custody rule. It is 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 and their presentation in court for
identification and destruction. This record of movements and custody shall include the
identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date
and time when the transfer of custody was made in the course of the item's safekeeping and
use in court as evidence, and its final disposition. 15

People v. Hementiza  reiterated that the following four links in the chain of custody must be proved:
16

First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused by
the apprehending officer;

Second, the turnover of the dangerous drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer;

Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the dangerous drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and

Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked dangerous drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court.

We focus on the first and fourth links.

The first link refers to seizure and marking. "Marking" means the apprehending officer or the poseur-
buyer places his/her initials and signature on the seized item. 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. 17

Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. It is vital that the seized contraband be
immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as
reference.  Marking though should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator
18

immediately upon confiscation to truly ensure that they are the same items which enter the
chain of custody. 19

7. The failure of the arresting officers to immediately mark the seized drugs engendered serious
doubts on whether the marijuana leaves bought by the poseur-buyer from appellant were
indeed the very same ones indicated in the Chemistry Report. Too, there was no mention
of appellant's presence during the marking.
8. In People v. Lumaya , the Court acquitted the accused when the prosecution failed to
22

establish an unbroken chain of custody because the seized drug and buy bust money were
not marked at the place where the accused was arrested

The Court noted that from the time of seizure up until the dangerous drug was brought to the
office of the arresting officers, alteration, substitution or contamination of the seized item
could have happened.

Further, in People v. Dela Victoria,  the Court acquitted the accused because as in this case,
23

the marking was done without the presence of appellant, his representative or his counsel.

The first link also includes compliance with the physical inventory and photograph of the
seized dangerous drug. This is done before the dangerous drug is sent to the crime
laboratory for testing.

9. Indeed, there is nothing on record showing the required inventory and photography were
complied with. The prosecution's formal offer of evidence did not bear them. Nor did the
prosecution explain the absence of these requirements or its inability to comply with them.

In People v. Alagarme  and People v. Arposeple,  the Court ruled that the failure of the
26 27

arresting officers to prepare the required inventory and photograph of the seized dangerous
drug militated against the guilt of an accused. For under these circumstances, the integrity
and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti cannot be deemed to have been preserved.

10. The fourth link refers to the turnover and submission of the dangerous drug from the
forensic chemist to the court.  In drug related cases, it is of paramount necessity that the
28

forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the
dangerous drug submitted for examination i.e. when and from whom the dangerous drug
was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the
specimen; and the container it was in. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the
name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject
specimen. 29

Here, the testimony of PSI Salvacion was dispensed with because the defense admitted her
proposed testimony. It appears that the proposed testimony, was contained in her
affidavit,  only covered her findings on the drug sample submitted by PO3 Pacampara. She
30

did not discuss how she handled the dangerous drug from the time she received it until the
time it got presented in court. There was further no description of the method she utilized in
analyzing the chemical composition of the drug sample.
 In People v. Dahil and Castro,  the Court acquitted the accused in view of the absence of the
31

testimony of the forensic chemist on how she handled the dangerous drug submitted to her for
laboratory examination, viz:

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
1âшphi1

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
subpoena 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.

11. True, marking was done but the same was defective as the required witnesses under
Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 were not present. 

12. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty arises only when the
records do not indicate any irregularity or flaw in the performance of official duty

13.