You are on page 1of 14

GR No. 216753, Feb 07, 2018.

Del Castillo prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized
items, i.e., there were missing links.
PEOPLE v. JESUS DUMAGAY Y SUACITO
The Prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items.
FACTS: Dumagay was charged charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA
9165, (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002): …did then and there willfully,
Chain of custody is "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO2 JIMENEA, …who acted as poseur-
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
buyer, 20 vials of 1 ml. Morphine, 1 vial of 200 ml. Nandrolone Decanoate, 2
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
syringes, which accused knowing the same to be dangerous drugs.xxx
forensic laboratory to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction."
During the trial, the prosecution presented PO3 Jimenea and SPO4 Rosales as
Each link in the chain of custody rule must be sufficiently proved by the prosecution
witnesses. However, the presentation of SPO1 Gallego, the investigating officer, and
and examined with careful scrutiny by the court. The prosecution has the burden to
PCI Diestro, the forensic chemist, were dispensed with since the prosecution and
show "every link in the chain, from the moment the dangerous drug was seized
the defense already agreed to a stipulation of facts. They stipulated that SPO1
from the accused until the time it is offered in court as evidence.” Failure to strictly
Gallego was the investigator who received the appellant and the seized items; that
comply with rules of procedure, however, does not ipso facto invalidate or render
he conducted an inventory of the items and took pictures thereof; and that he
void the seizure and custody over the items as long as the prosecution is able to
prepared the Investigation Report and the Request for Laboratory
show that "(a) there is justifiable ground for noncompliance; and (b) the integrity
Examination. They also stipulated that Diestro received the Request for Laboratory
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved." Thus, in case the
Examination of the vials conducted the examination thereon, which yielded a
police officers fail to strictly comply with the rules of procedure, they must be able
positive result for the presence of morphine.
to "explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and
RTC found Dumagay guilty of the crime charged. Dumagay appealed to CA arguing value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved x x x because the
that there was no valid buy-bust operation and that the police officers failed to Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.” In other
comply with Sec 21 of RA 9165 or the Chain of Custody Rule. CA affirmed the RTC words, taking into consideration the difficulty of complete compliance with the
decision. chain of custody requirement, the Court has considered substantial compliance
sufficient "as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
ISSUE: Whether the evidence seized may be admissible in court. properly preserved by the apprehending police officers."
HELD: NO. There was a valid buy-bust operation but the prosecution failed to No testimonies or stipulations, however, were made on the details of the turnover
establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items. of the seized vials from the police station to the crime laboratory, and the turnover
There was a valid Buy-Bust Operation and submission of the same from the crime laboratory to the court.

There was a valid buy bust operation as the prosecution was able to establish The prosecution in dispensing with the testimonies of SPO1 Gallego, the
details of the transaction from the initial contact of the poseur-buyer and the investigating officer, and PCI Diestro, the forensic chemist, failed to show every link
appellant up to the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the morphine. The of the chain of custody. Without the testimonies or stipulations stating the details
identities of the poseur-buyer and the appellant as the seller of the morphine, and on when and how the seized vials were brought to the crime laboratory, and
the details of the procedure employed by the police operatives in conducting; the thereafter, to the court, as well as the details on who actually delivered and
buy-bust were clearly established by the prosecution. The fact that the poseur- received the same from the police station to the crime laboratory, and later, to the
buyer, through the CI, solicited morphine from appellant is not prohibited by law court for the prosecution's presentation of evidence, the Court cannot ascertain
and does not render the buy bust operation invalid as, under prevailing whether the seized vials presented in evidence were the same vials seized from
jurisprudence, "a police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a appellant when he was arrested. These gaps in the chain of custody create doubt as
buy-bust operation, or what is known as a 'decoy solicitation,' is not prohibited by to whether the corpus delicti of the crime had been properly preserved. Although
law and does not render the buy-bust operation invalid." appellant was charged for selling vials of morphine and Nandrolone Decanoate, the
parties however stipulated that the items seized from appellant yielded positive
However, while there was a valid buy-bust operation, the Court finds that the
results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Clearly, the G.R. No. 205821, October 1, 2014. SECOND DIVISION. Leonen
identity of the corpus delicti of the crime had not been properly established.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, vs.
The prosecution likewise failed to give an explanation or a justifiable reason why GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN, Accused-appellant.
the apprehending police officers had failed to mark the seized items and conduct
FACTS: Dela Cruz was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous
the physical inventory of the same at the place where the appellant was arrested. It
drugs in two separate informations.
bears stressing that the marking of the apprehending police officers' initials or
signatures on the seized items must be made in the presence of the accused As alleged by the prosecution, dela Cruz was arrested in a buy-bust operation
immediately upon arrest. And although the Chain of Custody Rule allows the allegedly conducted after a civilian informant tipped the Zamboanga City Police
physical inventory of the seized items to be done at the nearest police station, this Office that a certain "Gary" was selling illegal drugs at the parking area for buses
is more of an exception than a rule. Police officers, therefore, must provide an behind Food Mart, Governor Lim Street, Sangali, Bunguioa, Zamboanga City.
explanation to justify their failure to conduct the marking and the physical
inventory at the place of arrest. RTC convicted dela Cruz for violating Article II, Section 5 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and was also convicted for violating Article II, Section
The Court also noticed that, although the prosecution stipulated that SPO1 Gallego 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
conducted the inventory, the Certificate of Inventory was signed by a certain PI On appeal to CA, dela Cruz assailed the prosecution’s failure to establish the chain
Domingo. of custody of the seized sachets of shabu. He also assailed the validity of the buy-
bust operation and the prosecution’s failure to present the informant in court. CA
Considering all the foregoing, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to (1) affirmed dela Cruz’ conviction in toto.
prove the corpus delicti of the crime; (2) establish an unbroken chain of custody of
the seized drugs; and (3) offer any explanation why the Chain of Custody Rule was ISSUE: Whether the prosecution was able to establish compliance with the chain of
not complied with. Accordingly, the Court is constrained to acquit appellant based custody requirements under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
on reasonable doubt. of 2002.

Jesus Dumagay y Suacito is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt. HELD: NO. With respect to the element of corpus delicti, Section 21 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by Republic Act No.
10640 provides for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or
NOTES CRIM: surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Particularly on the matter of custody
There is instigation when "the accused is lured into the commission of the offense before a criminal case is filed, Section 21, as amended, provides:
charged in order to prosecute him." On the other hand, "[t]here is entrapment SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of the Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
criminal while in the actual commission of the crime." A buy bust operation is a Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. –
form of entrapment used to apprehend drug peddlers. It is considered valid as long The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources
as it passes the "objective test," which demands that 'the details of the purported of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly and adequately instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
shown, i.e., the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
to purchase, and the promise or payment of the consideration until the
consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory
of the seized items 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, with an elected public official Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21,
and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media therefore, ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4) respects:
copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall
1. first, the nature of the substances or items seized;
be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
2. second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances or items seized;
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
3. third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures:
allegedly causing their seizure; and
Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under
4. fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the person/s
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them.
the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody
over said items. Compliance with this requirement forecloses opportunities for planting,
contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner.
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, non-compliance with Section 21
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or indicates a failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous
laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic drugs. It follows that this non-compliance suffices as a ground for acquittal.
Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
The prosecution’s sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which drugs and drug paraphernalia will not secure a conviction. Not even the
shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties will suffice. In fact,
immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when whatever presumption there is as to the regularity of the manner by which officers
the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and took and maintained custody of the seized items is "negated." Republic Act No.
controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the 9165 requires compliance with Section 21.
completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory
examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the Even the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actually
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic comply with the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice. "Marking of the
laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued seized drugs alone by the law enforcers is not enough to comply with the clear and
immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification; unequivocal procedures prescribed in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165."

.... Four (4) links "should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item:

The significance of complying with Section 21’s requirements cannot be  first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
overemphasized. Non-compliance is tantamount to failure in establishing identity of from the accused by the apprehending officer;
corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal  second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
possession of dangerous drugs. By failing to establish an element of these offenses, to the investigating officer;
non-compliance will, thus, engender the acquittal of an accused.  third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
"Failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 implie[s] a  fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the from the forensic chemist to the court."
corpus delicti." It "produce[s] doubts as to the origins of the [seized
paraphernalia]."
The linkages in the chain of custody of the subject item were not clearly
established. As can be gleaned from his forequoted testimony, PO1 Collado failed to
provide informative details on how the subject shabu was handled immediately
after the seizure. He just claimed that the item was handed to him by the accused G.R. No. 206590 March 27, 2017 FIRST DIVISION, Del Castillo
in the course of the transaction and, thereafter, he handed it to the investigator.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MYRNA GAYOSO y ARGUELLES,
There is no evidence either on how the item was stored, preserved, labeled, and Accused-Appellant
recorded. PO1 Collado could not even provide the court with the name of the
FACTS: PI Barber directed SP03 De Dios to conduct a surveillance on Gayoso after
investigator. He admitted that he was not present when it was delivered to the
receiving several reports that she was peddling prohibited drugs. Three weeks later,
crime laboratory. It was Forensic Chemist Bernardino M. Banac, Jr. who identified
SP03 De Dios confirmed that appellant was indeed engaged in illegal drug activities.
the person who delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory. He disclosed that
PI Barber filed for and was issued a search warrant. However, prior to implementing
he received the specimen from one PO1 Cuadra, who was not even a member of
the search warrant, PI Barber decided to conduct a "confirmatory test-buy"
the buy-bust team. Per their record, PO1 Cuadra delivered the letter-request with
designating SP03 De Dios as poseur-buyer and giving him ₱200.00 marked money
the attached seized item to the CPD Crime Laboratory Office where a certain PO2
for the operation.
Semacio recorded it and turned it over to the Chemistry Section.
SP03 De Dios and a civilian asset proceeded to the house of appellant and asked her
In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the considered view that chain of custody
if they could buy shabu. The sale was consummated when appellant took the
of the illicit drug seized was compromised. Hence, the presumption of regularity in
marked money from SP03 De Dios after giving him a sachet of shabu. SP03 De Dios
the performance of duties cannot be applied in this case.
immediately informed PI Barber by text message about the successful
Apart from the blatantly irregular handling by PO1 Bobon of the seven (7) sachets, "confirmatory test-buy". PI Barber and his team of police officers who were
it is also admitted that no physical inventory and taking of photographs in the positioned 100 meters away n1shed towards the house of appellant. He also
presence of dela Cruz or of any of the other persons specified by Section 21 were instructed SP03 De Dios and the civilian asset to summon the Barangay Chairman
conducted. to witness the search of the house. When he arrived together with a ko,gawad and
a media representative, SP03 Salamida read the search warrant to appellant.
The miniscule amount of narcotics supposedly seized from dela Cruz amplifies the
doubts on their integrity.1âwphi1 In total, the seven (7) sachets supposedly During the search of the house, SP04 Bandoy found a tin foil under the mattress.
contained all of 0.1405 gram of shabu. This quantity is so miniscule it amounts to SP03 De Dios took it from SP04 Bandoy and gave it to SP03 Salamida who found
little more than 7% of the weight of a five-centavo coin (1.9 grams) or a one- seven sachets of shabu inside, in addition to the four sachets of shabu found inside
centavo coin (2.0 grams). the right pocket of the short pants of appellant. The search of the house also
revealed several drug paraphernalia. An inventory of seized items was prepared and
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for
the same was signed by the Barangay Chairman, P02 Isip, SP04 Bandoy, and
acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance
appellant. The sachets of shabu were brought to the Philippine Drug Enforcement
with Section 21. “The likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an
Agency (PDEA) then to the PNP Crime Laboratory for qualitative examination. The
exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical
results of the examination verified that the seized sachets contained shabu.
characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to
people in their daily lives." RTC convicted Gayosa. Upon appeal, Gayosa assailed the validity of the search
warrant claiming that it was not issued by the RTC upon determination of probable
As the integrity of the corpus delicti of the crimes for which dela Cruz is charged has
cause. She argued that the "'confirmatory test-buy" conducted by the poseur buyer
not been established, it follows that there is no basis for finding him guilty beyond
and the confidential asset was not valid since they forced her to engage in a drug
reasonable doubt. It is proper that dela Cruz be acquitted.
sale. She maintained that the shabu presented during trial was inadmissible in
evidence due to several gaps in its chain of custody.
ISSUE: Whether the chain of custody of evidence was established.
HELD: NO. The chain of custody of evidence was not established
Chain of custody is defined 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 In this regard, the Court takes note that the testimonies of the prosecution
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping, to presentation in court for witnesses failed to identify the person to whom the seized items were turned over
destruction." at the police station. None of the arresting officers presented as witnesses
identified the shabu presented during trial as the same shabu seized from
Thus, as a general rule, four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item
appellant. Thus, the second link in the chain of custody is missing.
must be established:
The transfer of the seized shabu from the investigating officer to the forensic
1. first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
chemist in the crime laboratory is the third link in the chain of custody. The request
from the accused by the apprehending officer;
for laboratory examination of the PDEA identifies the police officer who delivered
2. second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
the seized shabu as a certain SPO1 Asis, but he was not presented to testify that
to the investigating officer;
the shabu delivered to the crime laboratory was the same shabu confiscated from
3. third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
appellant. There is a third break in the chain of custody.
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
4. fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized Nothing also can be gained from the testimony of the forensic chemist PSI Cruto.
from the forensic chemist to the court. His testimony is not clear and positive since he failed to assert that the alleged
packs of chemical substance presented for laboratory examination and tested
positive for shabu were the very same substance allegedly recovered from
Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials
appellant. His testimony was limited to the result of the examination he conducted
and signature on the items after they have been seized. It is the starting point in the
and not on the source of the substance.
custodial link. It is vital that the seized items be marked immediately since the
succeeding handlers thereof will use the markings as reference. The chain of From the foregoing, it appears that no chain of custody was established at all. What
custody rule also requires that the marking of the seized contraband be done "(l) in we have here are individual links with breaks in-between which could not be
the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation." seamlessly woven or tied together. The so-called links in the chain of custody show
that the seized shabu was not handled properly starting from the actual seizure, to
In this case, the records do not show that the arresting officers marked the seized
its turnover in the police station and the PDEA, as well as its transfer to the crime
items with their initials in the presence of appellant and immediately upon
laboratory for examination. The Court therefore cannot conclude with moral
confiscation. While P02 Isip testified that the seized sachets of shabu were marked
certainty that the shabu confiscated from appellant was the same as that presented
in the police station, no evidence was presented to show that the marking was
for laboratory examination and then presented in court.
accomplished in the presence of appellant. Moreover, the author of the markings
on said items was never identified. None of the police officers admitted placing the It is indeed desirable that the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken. In
markings. There was therefore a complete absence of evidence to prove authorship reality however, this rarely occurs. The legal standard that must therefore be
of the markings. observed "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
While marking of the evidence is allowed in the nearest police station, this
accused."
contemplates a case of warrantless searches and seizures. Here, the police officers
secured a search warrant prior to their operation. They therefore had sufficient Here, the Court finds that the apprehending officers failed to properly preserve the
time and opportunity to prepare for its implementation. However, the police integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. There are just too many
officers failed to mark immediately the plastic sachets of shabu seized inside breaks and gaps to the effect that a chain of custody could not be established at all.
appellant's house in spite of an Inventory of Property Seized that they prepared
In this case, the apprehending team never conducted a physical inventory of the
while still inside the said house. The failure of the arresting officers to comply with
seized items at the place where the search warrant was served in the presence of a
the marking of evidence immediately after confiscation constitutes the first gap in
representative of the Department of Justice, nor did it photograph the same in the
the chain of custody.
presence of appellant after their initial custody and control of said drug, and after
The turnover of the seized shabu from the arresting officers to the investigating immediately seizing and confiscating the same. Neither was an explanation offered
officer in the police station constitutes the second link in the chain of custody. for such failure. While this directive of rigid compliance has been tempered in
certain cases, "such liberality, as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CYRUS VILLANUEVA Y ISORENA
can be applied only when the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are ALIAS "TUTOY" AND ALVIN SAYSON Y ESPONCILLA ALIAS "ALVIN
properly preserved." Such an exception does not obtain in this case. "Serious TALANGKA", Accused-Appellants.
uncertainty is generated on the identity of the [shabu] in view of the broken
FACTS: Villanueva and Sayson were charged with Murder for allegedly stabbing
linkages in the chain of custody. [Thus,] the presumption of regularity in the
Enrico causing his death. Accused Valencia could not be located and still remains at
performance of official duty accorded to the [apprehending officers] by the courts
large. Upon arraignment, Villanueva and Sayson entered a plea of not guilty to the
below cannot arise."
charge against them.
NOTES REM:
Villanueva, Sayson and Valencia simultaneously attacked Enrico at the tricycle
Probable cause for a valid search warrant is defined "as such facts and terminal. Villanueva punched Enrico on the face twice while Sayson hit the latter at
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe the back of the head with a stone wrapped in a t-shirt. Valencia then stabbed Enrico
that an offense has been committed, and that objects sought in connection with on the left side of his armpit twice. Enrico tried to fight back to no avail. The
the offense are in the place sought to be searched." The probable cause must be assailants thereafter fled. However, Villanueva was caught by men aboard a
"determined personally by the judge, after examination under oath or affirmation pursuing tricycle.
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
Brgy police Gonzales received a call requesting their assistance on a stabbing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." Probable cause
incident at the tricycle terminal. Thereat, Gonzales saw Villanueva, being held by
does not mean actual and positive cause, nor does it import absolute certainty. The
the tricycle drivers. Gonzales brought Villanueva to the Barangay Hall where the
determination of the existence of probable cause is concerned only with the
stabbing incident was recorded in the barangay police blotter. Thereafter, Villanueva
question of whether the affiant has reasonable wounds to believe that the accused
was brought to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) office of the Muntinlupa
committed or is committing the crime charged.
City Police Station.
RTC convicted Villanueva and Sayson. Upon appeal to the CA, they assailed the
legality of the warrantless arrest effected by the barangay officials upon Villanueva.
CA affirmed the conviction by RTC.
ISSUE: Whether accused is estopped from assailing the validity of his warrantless
arrest.
HELD: YES. The accused-appellants never raised the supposed illegality of their
arrest prior to their arraignment. The accused-appellants only brought up the
supposed irregularity in their arrest for the first time in their appeal to the CA. It has
been ruled time and again that an accused is estopped from assailing any
irregularity with regard to his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the
quashal of the information against him on this ground before his arraignment. Any
objection involving the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the
objection is deemed waived.
NOTES CRIM:
Mere superiority in numbers does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior
strength. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use force
G.R. No. 226475, March 13, 2017 THIRD DIVISION, Reyes excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person
attacked. The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, "It must, however, be clarified that a search warrant issued in accordance with the
size and strength of the parties. provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure does not give the authorities
limitless discretion in implementing the same as the same Rules provide
parameters in the proper conduct of a search." One of those parameters set by law
GR No. 208775, Jan 22, 2018, Tijam. is Section 8 of Rule 126, to wit:

JORGE DABON v. PEOPLE Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of
two witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall
FACTS: Law enforcement agents applied for a search warrant after the surveillance be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any
and test-buy operations conducted by the operatives of the PNP-CIDG in Bohol, member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of
which confirmed that Dabon was engaged in illegal drug activity. sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
For his defense, Dabon argued that he was surprised when he was awakened by The law is mandatory to ensure the regularity in the execution of the search
alleged members of the CIDG, who entered his room, pointing guns at him and warrant. This requirement is intended to guarantee that the implementing officers
telling them that they will conduct a raid.22 will not act arbitrarily which may tantamount to desecration of the right enshrined
Dabon and Dumaluan claimed that they were not allowed to witness the search in our Constitution.
conducted by the CIDG. Instead, they were ordered to stay and sit in the living room In this case, it is undisputed that Dabon and his wife were actually present in their
while other members of the household were locked inside the room of their house residence when the police officers conducted the search in the bedroom where the
helper. drugs and drug paraphernalia were found. It was also undisputed that, as the CA
RTC ruled that the search implemented in Dabon's residence was valid and recognized, only Brgy. Kagawad Angalot was present to witness the same.
consequently found Dabon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections Failure to comply with the safeguards provided by law in implementing the search
11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC upheld the presumption of regularity warrant makes the search unreasonable. Thus, the exclusionary rule applies, i.e.,
in the performance of the police officers' duties in the absence of ill motives on any evidence obtained in violation of this constitutional mandate is inadmissible in
their part. Upon appeal, CA affirmed the conviction of Dabon. The CA ratiocinated any proceeding for any purpose. We emphasize that the exclusionary rule ensures
that the right of Dabon to question his arrest was deemed waived because he failed that the fundamental rights to one's person, houses, papers, and effects are not
to question the same before arraignment. In any case, CA ruled that the procedural lightly infringed upon and are upheld.
flaw did not cast doubt on the fact that the illegal drugs and paraphernalia were
seized at the residence of Dabon. Lastly, we find that the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained was not defeated by
the fact that Dabon failed to timely object to such evidence's admissibility during
ISSUE: Whether the evidence obtained against Dabon admissible trial. We rule that Dabon's failure to file a motion to suppress the evidence
HELD: NO. Section 8, Rule 126 provides that the search should be witnessed by two obtained against him cannot be considered as a sufficient indication that he clearly,
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality only in the categorically, knowingly, and intelligently made a waiver. In criminal cases where
absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his life, liberty and property are all at stake, "[t]he standard of waiver requires that it
family. The hierarchy among the witnesses as explicitly provided under the law was not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and done with
not complied with. For one, the lawful occupants of the premises were not absent sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." After
when the police authorities implemented the search warrant. Even so, the two- all, he raised the objection in his Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration before the
witness rule was not complied with as only one witness, Brgy. Kagawad Angalot, trial court.
was present when the search was conducted. Accused-appellant Jorge Dabon is ACQUITTED of the crime charged against him.
The State and its agents cannot conduct searches and seizures without the requisite
warrant. Otherwise, the constitutional right is violated.
G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, THIRD DIVISION, Perlas-Bernabe. evidentiary value. Under the said section, prior to its amendment by RA 10640, the
apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARCELINO CRISPO y confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the
DESCALSO alias "GOGO" and ENRICO HERRERA y MONTES, Accused-Appellant presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department
FACTS: A confidential informant tipped the MPD of alleged illegal drug activities of a of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
certain Alias “Gogo” (later identified as Crispo) at Manila. After coordinating with copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the seized drugs must
PDEA, MPD organized a buy-bust operation with PO2 Reyes as the poseur buyer. be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from
Upon arrival at the area, the CI and P02 Reyes saw Crispo talking to his runner, confiscation for examination. In the case of People v. Mendoza, the Court stressed
Herrera, and decided to approach them. As they went nearer, Herrera approached that "[w]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or
the CI and P02 Reyes, while Crispo remained about 5 - 6 meters away. P02 Reyes the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the
then signified his intention of buying shabu, prompting Herrera to get the marked [seized drugs), the evils of switching, 'planting' or contamination of the
money from him, and thereafter, approach Crispo in order to remit the money and evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [RA]
get a sachet containing white crystalline substance from the latter. When Herrera 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the
handed over the sachet to P02 Reyes, the latter performed the pre-arranged signal, integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the[said drugs] that
directly causing his backups to rush into the scene and apprehend accused- were evidence herein of the corpus delicti,and thus adversely affected the
appellants. Upon frisking accused-appellants, the arresting officers recovered three trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the x x x presence of
(3) other plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from Crispo. The such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody."
accused-appellants and the seized items were then taken to the barangay office
where the arresting officers, inter alia, conducted the inventory and photography in Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 - under
the presence of 2 barangay kagawads, as indicated in the Receipt of justifiable grounds - will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over
Property/Evidence Seized. After examination at the Crime Laboratory, it was the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
confirmed that the sachets seized from accused-appellants contain are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. 39 In other words, the
methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure
RTC found Crispo and Herrera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution
charged. CA affirmed RTC ruling. CA ruled that the absence of representatives from satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-
the DOJ and the media during the conduct of the inventory is not fatal to the compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
prosecution of accused-appellants, so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of properly preserved.40 In People v.Almorfe, the Court explained that for the above-
the seized items are preserved. saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the
ISSUE: Whether unbroken chain of custody of drugs was established. procedural lapses, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
evidence had nonetheless been preserved. Also, in People v. De Guzman, it was
HELD: NO. While the inventory and photography of the seized items were made in emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a
the presence of two (2) elected public officials, i.e., Barangay Kagawads Ramon fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even
Amtolim and Helen Tolentino, as evidenced by their signatures on the Receipt of exist.
Property/Evidence Seized, the same were not done in the presence of
representatives from either the DOJ and the media. Absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items
inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any
Arresting officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21,
custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of Article II of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that
the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from Crispo. the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the
representatives enumerated under the law.
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the police officers
must follow when handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and
The law requires the presence of an elected public official, as well as G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, THIRD DIVISION, Leonen.
representatives from the DOJ and the media to ensure that the chain of custody
rule is observed and thus, remove any suspicion of tampering, switching, planting, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSHUA QUE Y
or contamination of evidence which could considerably affect a case. However, UTUANIS, Accused-Appellant.
minor deviations may be excused in situations where a justifiable reason for non-
compliance is explained. In this case, despite the non-observance of the witness
FACTS: Que was charged with violating Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive
requirement, no plausible explanation was given by the prosecution. Thus, for
Dangerous Drugs Act. Que filed a Motion to Quash Information and Warrant of
failure of the prosecution to provide justifiable grounds or show that special
Arrest and Admission to Bail. He pleaded not guilty to both charges when he was
circumstances exist which would excuse their transgression, the Court is
arraigned.
constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items
purportedly seized from Crispo have been compromised.
During the hearings for the bail petition, the prosecution presented 3 witnesses:
[During pendency of appeal, Herrera had already died, the criminal action against the poseur-buyer, PO3 Lim; the arresting officer, SPO1 Jacinto; and forensic chemist
him is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the P/C Insp. Diestro.
accused.]
NOTES CRIM: PO3 Lim recounted that an informant reported that a person identified as "Joshua,"
later identified as Que, was selling shabu. Acting on this report, P/C Insp. Muksan
To properly secure the conviction of an accused charged with Illegal Sale of
organized a buy-bust operation with PO3 Lim as poseur-buyer. PO3 Lim and the
Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove: (a) the Identity of the buyer and the
informant then left for the area of Fort Pilar. There, the informant introduced PO3
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the Delivery of the thing sold and
Lim to Que. PO3 Lim then told Que that he intended to purchase P100.00 worth of
the payment. Where an accused is charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous
shabu. Que then handed him shabu inside a plastic cellophane. In turn, PO3 Lim
Drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements to warrant his
handed Que the marked P100.00 bill and gave the pre-arranged signal to have Que
conviction: (a) the accused was in Possession of an item or object identified as a
arrested.
prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not Authorized by law; and (c) the accused
Freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
After the arrest, the marked bill and another sachet of shabu were recovered from
In both instances, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be Que. Que was then brought to the police station where the sachets of shabu and
established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms the marked bill were turned over to the investigator, SPO4 Tubo, who then marked
an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. To obviate any unnecessary doubt these items with his initials. He also prepared the letter request for laboratory
on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken examination of the sachets' contents. Arresting officer SPO1 Jacinto also testified to
chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody the same circumstances recounted by PO3 Lim.
from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence
of the crime.
P/C Insp. Diestro recounted their office's receipt of a request for laboratory
examination of the contents of two (2) plastic sachets. She noted that these
contents tested positive for shabu.

RTC denied Que's plea for bail. Trial on the merits followed. In lieu of presenting
evidence, the prosecution manifested that it was adopting the testimonies of the
witnesses presented in the hearings for bail.

Que was the sole witness for the defense. He recalled that he went to Fort Pilar
Shrine to light candles and to pray. He then left on board a tricycle. Mid-transit, 6
persons blocked the tricycle and told him to disembark. After getting off the required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,
tricycle, he was brought to a house some 5 meters away. Two (2) men, later That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where
identified as PO3 Lim and SPO1 Jacinto, searched his pockets but found nothing. the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office
About 30 minutes later, another man arrived and handed something to SPO1 of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
Jacinto. Que was then brought to the police station and turned over to SPO4 Tubo seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under
and was subsequently detained at the Zamboanga City Police Station. 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
RTC found Que guilty as charged. CA affirmed RTC ruling in toto. void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

ISSUE: Whether the unbroken chain of custody of drugs was established. (2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as
well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be
HELD: NO. There is no showing that a proper inventory and taking of pictures was
submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative
done by the apprehending officers. The marking of the sachets of shabu supposedly
examination;
obtained from accused-appellant was conducted at a police station without
accused-appellant, or any person representing him, around. There was not even a
third person, whose presence was required by Section 21(1) prior to its (3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be
amendment — "a representative from the media and the Department of Justice done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the
(DOJ), and any elected public official." receipt of the subject items: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential
chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial
On the element of corpus delicti, Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous
laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, spells out the requirements for
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory:
the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or
Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon
drug paraphernalia. Section 21(1) to (3) stipulate the requirements concerning
completion of the said examination and certification
custody prior to the filing of a criminal case:

The following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
item:
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 1. first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as from the accused by the apprehending officer;
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized 2. second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: to the investigating officer;

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous 3. third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the 4. fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated from the forensic chemist to the court.
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official
and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be
When the identity of corpus delicti is jeopardized by non-compliance with Section warrant is served. In case of warrantless seizures, these actions must be done "at
21, critical elements of the offense of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
drugs remain wanting. It follows then, that this non-compliance justifies an whichever is practicable."
accused's acquittal.
Moreover, Section 21(1) requires at least three (3) persons to be present during the
Even the customary presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties physical inventory and photographing. These persons are:
cannot suffice. People v. Kamad explained that the presumption of regularity
applies only when officers have shown compliance with "the standard conduct of 1. first, the accused or the person/s from whom the items were seized;
official duty required by law." It is not a justification for dispensing with such 2. second, an elected public official; and
compliance.
3. third, a representative of the National Prosecution Service.
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act requires nothing less than strict
compliance. Otherwise, the raison d'etre of the chain of custody requirement is
There are, however, alternatives to the first and the third. As to the first (i.e., the
compromised. Precisely, deviations from it leave the door open for tampering,
accused or the person/s from whom items were seized), there are two (2)
substitution, and planting of evidence.
alternatives: first, his or her representative; and second, his or her counsel. As to
the representative of the National Prosecution Service, a representative of the
Even acts which approximate compliance but do not strictly comply with Section 21 media may be present in his or her place.
have been considered insufficient.
The four (4) links were underscored in Nandi:
As amended by Republic Act No. 10640, Section 21(1) uses the disjunctive "or," i.e.,
"with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
1. first, from the accused to the apprehending officers;
Service or the media." Thus, a representative from the media and a representative
2. second, from the apprehending officers to the investigating officers;
from the National Prosecution Service are now alternatives to each other.

3. third, from the investigating officers to the forensic chemists; and


Section 21(1), as amended, now includes a specification of locations where the
physical inventory and taking of photographs must be conducted. The amended
section uses the mandatory verb "shall" and now includes the following proviso: 4. fourth, from the forensic chemists to the courts.

Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the Section 21(1)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure,
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it,
warrantless seizures. minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence. The
presence of the accused, or a representative, and of third-party witnesses, coupled
with their attestations on the written inventory, ensures that the items delivered to
As regards the items seized and subjected to marking, Section 21(1) of the
the investigating officer are the items which have actually been inventoried.
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, requires the performance of
two (2) actions: physical inventory and photographing. Section 21(1) is specific as to
when and where these actions must be done. As to when, it must be "immediately The prosecution here failed to account for the intervening period between the
after seizure and confiscation." As to where, it depends on whether the seizure was supposed handover of the sachet from accused-appellant to PO3 Lim, to the
supported by a search warrant. If a search warrant was served, the physical marking of the sachets by SPO4 Tubo. Likewise, it absolutely failed to identify
inventory and photographing must be done at the exact same place that the search measures taken during transit from the target area to the police station to ensure
the integrity of the sachets allegedly obtained and to negate any possibility of
adulteration or substitution.

The presence of third-party witnesses is imperative, not only during the physical
inventory and taking of pictures, but also during the actual seizure of items. The
requirement of conducting the inventory and taking of photographs "immediately
after seizure and confiscation" necessarily means that the required witnesses must
also be present during the seizure or confiscation.

In order that there may be conscionable non-compliance, two (2) requisites must
G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, SECOND DIVISION, Peralta
be satisfied:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE SIPIN Y DE


1. first, the prosecution must specifically allege, identify, and prove
CASTRO, Accused-Appellants.
"justifiable grounds";
2. second, it must establish that despite non-compliance, the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized drugs and/or drug paraphernalia were FACTS: According to the prosecution witness, a confidential asset informed the
properly preserved. Police officers that a certain Enteng was selling shabu at Brgy Calumpang.
Information was recorded in the blotter and reported to the Chief Cantaco who
ordered theformation of a buby bust team and the conduct of peration. A poseur
Satisfying the second requisite demands a showing of positive steps taken to ensure
money was marked withinitials GAD by Team Leader SPO3 Reyes and a pre-
such preservation.
operational coordination was made with the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Task Force
by PO1 Gorospe.
The miniscule amount of narcotics seized, coupled with the dubious circumstances
of seizure, militates against the prosecution's case. RTC convicted accused for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for illegal
sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Anent compliance with Section 21 of
The buy-bust team's failures bring into question the integrity of the corpus delicti of
R.A. No. 9165, the trial court noted that the police officers testified that there was
the charge of sale of illegal drugs against accused-appellant. This leaves reasonable
an inventory prepared by PO1 Gorospe at the police station but failed to submit it in
doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant Joshua Que. Necessarily, he must be
evidence, and that they did not have any barangay official or media person with
acquitted.
them during the operation. Be that as it may, the trial court held that such non-
compliance is not fatal to the prosecution's case because its evidence shows that
NOTES EVID: the integrity and evidentiary value of the specimens were safeguarded. In
particular, the specimens were immediately marked at the place of the incident, the
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, mean such degree of proof as, chain of custody was preserved, and the evidence strongly prove beyond doubt that
excluding the possibility of error, produce absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is what was examined at the crime laboratory and found positive for shabu were the
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced same specimens bought from appellant and found in his possession.
mind. The conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the
CA affirmed the judgment of RTC.
offense charged.
ISSUE: Whether unbroken chain of custody of drugs was established
HELD: NO. The Court resolves to acquit appellant of the charges of illegal
possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs for failure to establish the unbroken
chain of custody of said drugs, and to proffer any justifiable ground for the non- police station. PO1 Gorospe added that he did not give an inventory despite the
compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. presence of appellant's relatives.
Since the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drugs It is not amiss to state that R.A. No. 10640, which amended Section 21 of R.A. No.
itself, proof beyond reasonable doubt that the seized item is the very same object 9165, now only requires two (2) witnesses to be present during the conduct of the
tested to be positive for dangerous drugs and presented in court as evidence is physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items, namely: (a) an
essential in every criminal prosecution under R.A. No. 9165. elected public official; and (b) either a representative from the National Prosecution
Service or the media.
The links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation,
are as follows: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug Police officers testified that there was an inventory prepared by PO1 Gorospe at the
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turn-over of the police station, but failed to submit in evidence the said document, and that they did
illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turn-over by the investigating not have any barangay official or media person with them during the operation.
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4)
The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of the required
the turn-over and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the
witnesses was not obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their
court.
attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote
area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was
Here, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the third link in
threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s
the chain of custody. As aptly pointed out by the PAO, there is an unreconciled
acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved
conflict between the testimonies of PO1 Diocena and PO1 Gorospe as to who
in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the
actually gave PO1 Diocena the specimens before they were brought to the crime
presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within
laboratory for examination.
the period required under Article 12533 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile
First, it is not clear whether it was PO1 Diocena or PO1 Raagas who confiscated the through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged
other sachet of suspected shabu found in possession of appellant. PO1 Diocena with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug
testified that after ordering appellant to empty his pocket, he confiscated the operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law
marked money and the said sachet, then gave them to PO1 Raagas for marking. In enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the
contrast, PO1 Raagas stated that he was the only one who recovered both plastic offenders could escape.
sachets from appellant.
"If the evidence of illegal drugs was not handled precisely in the manner prescribed
Second, it is doubtful whether a commotion took place after appellant was arrested, by the chain of custody rule, the consequence relates not to inadmissibility that
which supposedly prevented the police officers from making an inventory and would automatically destroy the prosecution's case but rather to the weight of
taking pictures of the seized evidence. PO1 Raagas claimed that nobody else was evidence presented for each particular case."
present, and that appellant did not call the attention of anyone when he was
The chain of custody rule is a matter of evidence and a rule of procedure, and that
arrested, but PO1 Gorospe insisted that there was a commotion caused by
the Court has the last say regarding the appreciation of evidence. Evidentiary
appellant's relatives.
matters are indeed well within the powers of courts to appreciate and rule upon,
Third, a crucial question looms over the safekeeping of the seized items which were and so, when the courts find appropriate, substantial compliance with the chain of
placed in a container on the way back to the police station. PO1 Diocena testified custody rule as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have
that PO1 Raagas was in custody of recovered items contained in a stapled plastic been preserved may warrant the conviction of the accused.
container, but PO1 Raagas said that the items were placed in a mere bond paper.
The requirements of marking the seized items, conduct of inventory and taking
Fourth, the records do not indicate that an inventory was identified and formally photograph in the presence of a representative from the media or the DOJ and a
offered in evidence, and the prosecution witnesses could not agree on whether local elective official, are police investigation procedures which call for
there was an inventory of the items seized from appellant. PO1 Diocena claimed administrative sanctions in case of non-compliance. Violation of such procedure
that there was none, but PO1 Raagas said that PO1 Gorospe prepared one at the may even merit penalty under R.A. No. 9165.
However, non-observance of such police administrative procedures should not
affect the validity of the seizure of the evidence, because the issue of chain of
custody is ultimately anchored on the admissibility of evidence, which is exclusively
within the prerogative of the courts to decide in accordance with the rules on
evidence.

At any rate, the burden of proving the guilt of an accused rests on the prosecution
which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the
defense. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on
reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right, irrespective of the reputation of the
accused who enjoys the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is
shown. For failure of the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
unbroken chain of custody of the drugs seized from appellant, and to prove as a fact
any justifiable reason for non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its
IRR, appellant must be acquitted of the crimes charged.

You might also like