FORENSIC CHEMISTRY AND TOXICOLOGY

Activity No. 1
NIKKA L. LUIS
BSCRIMINOLOGY III-B

Answer the following question.

1. Why Evidence Chain of Custody is Important?

- The chain of custody proves the integrity of a piece of evidence.] A paper trail is
maintained so that the persons who had charge of the evidence at any given
time can be known quickly and summoned to testify during the trial if required.
Chain of custody issues are particularly important in cases involving drugs, guns,
or samples that have been tested for the presence of drugs or alcohol to prove
intoxication. To prove chain of custody, prosecutors must present documentary
and testimonial evidence to establish that the item presented at trial is the same
item that was in the possession or taken from the defendant.

2. State and elaborate the step by step procedure of handling of evidence from the crime
scene up to the transmittal of physical evidence to the crime laboratory. Start with the
procedure then elaborate your answer.

-
REMOVAL OF EVIDENCE TAGGING OF EVIDENCE
COLLECTING EVIDENCE
The investigator places his Any physical
This is accompished initials, the date and time evidence obtained
after the search is lf discovery on each item lf
evidence and the time
must be tagged
completed, the rough
discovery on each item of before it submit to
sketch is finished and
evidence for proper evidence custodian.
photographs taken. identification

PRESERVATION OF EVALUATION OF
The evidence technician EVIDENCE
stores the evidence in a EVIDENCE
secure place and records It is the investigator’s
Each item of evidence
everyone who have an responsibility to ensure that
every precaution in exercised must be evaluated in
access to the evidence
to preserved physical evidence relation to all the
during the investigation
in the state in which it was evidence individually and
until the final disposition of recovered obtained until it is collectively.
the case. released
3. Site 2 cases dismissed due to improper handling of evidence and identify the reasons
why the case dismissed by the court. (1 example case for local and 1 case for foreign.

Example case in local

[ G.R. No. 220398, June 10, 2019 ]

SERGIO O. VALENCIA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

DEL CASTILLO, J.
This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed by Sergio O.
Valencia (petitioner), assails the April 6, 2015 Resolution[1] of the Sandiganbayan (First
Division) in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 which denied petitioner's Demurrer to
Evidence on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to hold him liable for
malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as well as its September
10, 2015 Resolution[2] which denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
subsequently filed for lack of merit. In its assailed Resolution dated April 6, 2015, the
Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's Demurrer to Evidence. It held that the credit advises
issued by the COA, purportedly showing petitioner's liquidation of the amount of P13.3
million, were binding only on the COA, but not the Ombudsman or the court. Moreover,
it ruled that these credit advices approving petitioner's disbursements affected only his
administrative accountability, but not his criminal responsibility,[3] as enunciated in
Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan. Likewise, the Sandiganbayan gave credence to the
testimonies of the intelligence chief of the military, police, and the National Bureau of
Investigation that there were no intelligence projects for which petitioner's cash
advances were allegedly disbursed as claimed in his liquidation documents.
Further, the Sandiganbayan ruled that there was not enough evidence to show that he
conspired with his co-accused Arroyo, Aguas and Uriarte. However, the Sandiganbayan
held that petitioner could not be completely exculpated. It found that, although
petitioner could not be held liable for plunder (since he only allegedly amassed the
amount of P13.3 million which was way below the P50 million threshold for plunder),
still, there was sufficient evidence to convict him of malversation under Article 217 of
the RPC. The Sandiganbayan ratiocinated, It is therefore apparent that in denying
petitioner's Demurrer to Evidence and ruling that there was sufficient evidence to hold
him liable for malversation despite the lack of specific allegations of the factual details
pertaining to the crime of malversation in the information, respondent Sandiganbayan is
said to have gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Consequently, we find no need to discuss the other issues raised by petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed April 6, 2015 and September 10,
2015 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 are SET
ASIDE and the Demurrer to Evidence of petitioner is GRANTED.
Example in Foreign

The Brady v. Maryland case was a Supreme Court case that explored a criminal
defendant's right to exculpatory evidence, any evidence that may prove the defendant's
innocence. The Brady v. Maryland 1963 case significance sprouts from the fact that it set
precedence to ensure a fair trial guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court made several decisions on racially and politically charged cases
spanning from the 1915 Frank v. Magnum case to the 1935 Moore v. Dempsey case.
However, the Supreme Court decision on the Brady v. Maryland case changed the
criminal justice system in the United States in terms of a fair trial guaranteed by the Due
Process Clause, which ensures that no person can be deprived of liberty, life, or
property without the due process of law.

Larger Issues Related to Brady v. Maryland

The Brady v. Maryland case is about the state of Maryland violating the defendants'
constitutional rights by withholding exculpatory evidence. This case touches on a more
significant issue in criminal proceedings: the withholding of exculpatory evidence by the
prosecutors. In criminal cases representing the state, law enforcement members collect
evidence and present it to prosecutors. The prosecutors must disclose exculpatory
evidence even though the defendant did not request it. In other words, the state must
disclose exculpatory evidence regardless of good faith or bad faith. Failure to do so
denies the defendant a fair trial and can lead the court to order a new trial.

The Ruling
In the Brady v. Maryland holding, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision by the
court of appeals, which held that withholding relevant material evidence favorable to a
defendant violates the Due Process Clause. Material evidence is any crucial information
or matter that, when presented to a jury or a judge, they can reasonably assume that it
can influence the course of a case. The Supreme Court held that, had the suppressed
evidence been presented during the trial, it would not have reduced the offense from
first-degree murder, but rather it could have only reduced the punishment. The
Supreme Court concluded that prosecutors should be mandated to disclose any material
evidence that can help reduce the defendant's punishment.