SECTION 21 OF RA NO.

9165 AS
AMENDED BY RA NO. 10640

40
6
0
1
.
O
N
T
C
A
C
R E P U B LI

EN
H
T
G
N
E
E
R
H
T
T
S
F
O
ER
H
N
T
E
R
IG
H
A
U
T
P
F
M
O
OR
A
T
F
C
T
G
IC
G
C
L
N
I
U
A
B
D
R
U
D
N
P
AN
E
I
E
T
M
R
N
A
F
AN
,
W
O
T
E
O
N
1
H
N
2
T
K
ME
N
E
N
O
S
I
R
I
E
CT
E
RW
E
E
S
V
GOV
I
H
E
S
T
S
N
O
O
2
E
,
P
0
H
5
0
R
E
6
2
PU
PR
91
.
OF
M
O
O
T
N
C
C
ACT S THE RUGS A
A
D
S
U
RO
E
G
DAN

 SEC. 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

 (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
and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media who

 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,
finally,
That
noncompliance of 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

 (3) A certification of the forensic

laboratory examination results, which
shall be done by the forensic
laboratory examiner, shall be issued
immediately upon the receipt of the
subject item/s: 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 laboratory examination
report shall be provisionally issued
stating therein the quantities of

Provided,
however,
That
a
final
certification shall be issued immediately
upon completion of the said examination
and certification;

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:

The apprehending or seizing officer

having initial custody and control of
the seized or confiscated dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, instruments/
paraphernalia
and/or
laboratory
equipment shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, mark,
inventory and photograph the same
in the following manner:

WITH SEARCH WARRANT

The
marking,
physical
inventory and photograph of
the seized/ confiscated items
shall be conducted where the
search warrant is served.

REFERENCE

While the requirement of marking is not expressly

specified in Section 21 of RA No. 9165, however,
consistent 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. [People v. Arnold Martinez, G.R. No.
191366, December 13, 2010, Second Division]

REFERENCE

Thus, crucial in proving chain of custody is the

marking of the seized drugs or other related items
immediately after they are 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. Long before Congress
passed R.A. No. 9165, this Court has consistently
held that failure of the authorities to immediately
mark the seized drugs casts reasonable doubt on the
authenticity of the corpus delicti. [People v. Sabdula,
G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014, Second Division]

REFERENCE

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. [People v. Sabdula ibid., citing People v.
Alejandro. G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011, 655
SCRA 279, 289-290]

WARRANTLESS SEIZURES (1 of 2)

In warrantless seizures, the

marking of the seized items in
the presence of the violator, may
be done upon confiscation or
immediately at the nearest police
station or the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/ team.
Marking after seizure is the
starting point in the custodial
link.

WARRANTLESS SEIZURES (2 of 2)

On the other hand, the physical

inventory and photograph shall
be conducted at the nearest
police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/
team, whichever is practicable.
However, the apprehending team
is not prevented from conducting
the inventory and photograph at
the place where the drugs were

In all cases, when the execution of

search warrant is preceded by
warrantless seizures, the marking,
inventory and photograph of the
items recovered from the search
warrant
shall
be
performed
separately
from
the
marking,
inventory and photograph of the
items
seized
from
warrantless
seizures.

Who are required to be present?

The
physical
inventory
and
photograph of the seized/ confiscated
items shall be done in the presence of
the (1) suspect or his representative or
counsel, (2) elected public official and
(3) a representative of the National
Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media,
who shall be required to sign in the
inventory of the seized or confiscated
items and be given copy thereof. In case
of their refusal to sign, it shall be stated
refused to sign on their names in the
certificate
of
inventory
of
the
apprehending or seizing officer.

A representative of the NPS is anyone from

its
employees,
while
the
media
representative is any media practitioner. The
elected public official is any incumbent
public official regardless of the place where
he/she is elected.
To prevent switching or contamination, the
seized items, which are fungible and
indistinct in character, and which have been
marked after the seizure, shall be sealed in a
container or evidence bag and signed by the
apprehending/ seizing officer for submission
to the forensic laboratory for examination.

In the case of seizure of plant sources at the

plantation site, where it is not physically
possible to count or weigh the seizure as a
complete entity, the seizing officer shall cause
its count or gross weight or net weight, as the
case may be, to be estimated. If it is safe and
practicable,
marking,
inventory
and
photograph of the seized plant sources may
be
performed
at
the
plantation
site.
Representative
samples
of
prescribed
quantity shall be taken at the plantation site
after seizure for laboratory examination, and
retained for presentation as the corpus delicti
of the seized/ confiscated plant sources
following the chain of custody of evidence.

Noncompliance of the requirements of Section

21(1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, 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 and custody over the items.
Any justification in case of noncompliance
with the requirements of Section 21(1) of RA
No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated
in the affidavits and/or shown by documents
as well as the steps taken by the
apprehending officer/ team to preserve the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/
confiscated items.

The chain of custody of the

seized items shall also show the
officers who handled and received
them with date and time when
the transfer of custody of the
same were made in the course of
safekeeping
until
they
were
submitted to forensic laboratory
for examination.

In People v. Sanchez, Supreme Court drew

a distinction between marking and inventory
and held that consistent with the chain of
custody rule, the marking of the drugs
seized without warrant must be done
immediately upon confiscation and in the
presence of the accused. [See number 16
footnote in People v. Coreche, G.R. No.
182528, August 14, 2009, First Division]

 The recent case of People v. Salvador, Supreme Court said:

Appellants contention that the marking of the seized
sachets of shabu should have been made in his presence
while at the scene of the crime instead of in the police
station fails to impress. It is clear from the earlier cited Sec.
21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA
9165 that that in a buy-bust situation, the marking may be
done in the presence of the violator in the nearest police
station or the nearest office of the apprehending team.
Appellant should not confuse buy-bust situation from search
and seizure conducted by virtue of a court-issued warrant. It
is in the latter case that physical inventory (which includes
the marking) is made at the place where the search warrant
is served. [People v. Salvador, G.R. No. 190621, February
10, 2014, Second Division; emphasis supplied]

Section 21(1) by RA No.9165, as amended,

however maintains that the venues of the
physical inventory and photography of the
seized items differ and depend on whether
the seizure was made by virtue of a search
warrant or through a warrantless seizure
such as a buy-bust operation. [People v.
Sanchez, G.R. No. October 15, 2008,
Second Division]

In People v. Holgado, the Supreme Court

reversed the conviction of the accused. It
observed that, While the buy-bust operation
team allegedly conducted an inventory of the
seized items, it is unclear if this inventory was
limited to those seized pursuant to the
enforcement of the search warrant (i.e., after the
conduct of the buy-bust operation) or was
inclusive of whatever items seized during the
buy-bust operation. [G.R. No. 207992, August
11, 2014, Third Division]

The arrested person or his counsel or

representative need not be compelled to
sign in the inventory report of the items
seized from him in due regards to his rights.
Likewise, Section 21 (6) of RA 9165 says his
presence in the proceeding shall not
constitute an admission of guilt. Hence, it is
enough that a photo or picture be taken to
show that he/she was present during the
marking and inventory.

As experienced in the case of public prosecutors, in

several occasions they would refuse to act as witness in
the inventory for the reason that it may prejudice their
quasi-judicial functions when the complaint would be filed
eventually in their office. Media representatives, who
attended the inventory, on the other hand, sometimes
would not sign also, by claiming, for example, that it is
against their company policy sign. While some public
elected officials if the arrested violator happens to be their
relative and for other personal reasons, would not sign.
The point is that at that very hour after the inventory,
the apprehending officers have no authority to
compel the witnesses, who were present during the
inventory, to sign, except to enter refused to sign in
the certificate of inventory.

In Malillin v. People (576 Phil 633, 2008),

the High Court said that the likelihood of
tampering, loss or mistake with respect to
an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is
small and is one that has physical
characteristics fungible in nature and similar
in form substances familiar to people in their
lives.[People v. Holgado]

The seized items shall be placed in an

envelope or an evidence bag unless the
type and quantity of the seized items require
a different type of handling and/or container.
The evidence bag or container shall
accordingly be signed by the handling officer
and turned over to the next officer in the
chain of custody. [People v. Sanchez]

If the sealing of the seized substances has

not been made, the prosecution would have
to present every police officer, messenger,
laboratory
technician,
and
storage
personnel, the entire chain of custody, no
matter how briefly ones possession has
been. Each of them has to testify that the
substance, although unsealed, has not
been tampered with or substituted while in
his care. [People v. Habana, G.R. No.
188900, March 5, 2010]

The failure of the prosecution to show that the

police conducted the required physical inventory
and photographed the objects confiscated does not
ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest of the
accused or render inadmissible in evidence the
items seized. This is due to the proviso added in the
implementing rules stating that it must still be shown
that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that
the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence
have not been preserved. What is crucial is that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
are preserved for they will be used in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. [People v. Salvador, supra, citing People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182347,
October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 879, 898 and People v. Manalao, G.R. No. 187496, February
6, 2013, 690 SCRA 106, 119]

The integrity and evidentiary value of

seized items are properly preserved for as
long the chain of custody of the same are
duly established. [People v. Salvador, ibid]

In the present case, the prosecution apparently

did not want to accept that the police had
committed lapses in the handling of the seized
materials and thus did not bother to present any
explanation to justify the non-observance of the
prescribed. It likewise failed to prove that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the items adduced were not
tainted as the discussions below will show. The nonobservance by the police of the required procedure
cannot therefore be excused. [People v. Sanchez,
supra; emphasis supplied]

The last paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of

the IRR of RA No. 9165 provides a mechanism to
ensure that not every case of non-compliance will
irretrievably prejudice the prosecutions case. To
warrant application of this saving mechanism,
however, the prosecution must recognize and
explain the lapse or lapses in the prescribed
procedures. The prosecution must likewise
demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized have been preserved.
[People v. Denoman, supra, citing People v.
Sanchez]

This is chain of custody of evidence seized from the crime

scene by the apprehending officers. Chain of custody is defined
or described in Section 1 (b) of Board Regulation No. 1, Series
of 2002.
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 at
each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in
the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court
and 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 dates and
times when such transfers of custody were made in the course
of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition.

People vs. ZAIDA KAMAD y AMBING

G.R. No. 174198; January 19,
2010

We applied this ruling in People v. Garcia,[27] People v. GumOyen,[28] People v. Denoman[29] and People v. Coreche[30]
where we recognized the following links that must be
established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation:
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.

[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]

G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009.

G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009.
G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009.
G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009.

People vs. SAPIA ANDONGAN

G.R. No. 184595; June 29, 2010

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

11]

Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633.

People
vs.
ANDONGAN
G.R. No. 184595; June 29, 2010

SAPIA

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.[11]
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)

[11]

Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633.

People vs. FERMIN

GR No. 179344, August 3, 2011

The following are the links that must be

established in the chain of custody in a
buy-bust situation: 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

Camad,[16] that there are links that must

be established
in the chain
custody in a
People
vs. MAPANLE,
et.of al
G.R.
No. 188976;
June 29, 2010viz: first, the seizure
buy-bust
situation,
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.

Marking of the seized drugs alone by the

enforcers is not enough to comply with the
clear
and
unequivocal
procedures
prescribed in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. It
must show also the identity of the person
who made the markings and the time and
place where these markings were made.
[People v. Magat, 179939, September 29,
2008; People v. Denoman, G.R. No.
171732, August 14, 2009]

Laboratory Examination, Custody

and Report
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 submitted
to PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a
qualitative and quantitative examination,
subject as provided further below:

Quantitative examination may

be done upon request by the
apprehending team or upon
issuance of court order when the
determination of purity of the
seized/ confiscated dangerous
drugs is required by law.

A certification or chemistry report of

the forensic laboratory examination
results, which shall be done by the
forensic examiner, shall be issued
immediately upon the receipt of the
subject
item/s
within
the
reglementary
period
that
would
enable the apprehending officer/
team to file the criminal charge/s
with the prosecutors office against
the violator/s as prescribed by law.

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 to file the criminal charge/s
against the violator/s by the apprehending
officer/ team, a partial laboratory examination
report shall be provisionally issued, stating
therein the quantities of dangerous drugs or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals
still to be examined by the forensic
laboratory. Provided, that a final certification
or
chemistry
report
shall
be
issued
immediately upon completion of the said
examination.

In provinces where no forensic or crime

laboratories are equipped and operational for
scientific drug analysis, or when the distance
from the existing PNP, NBI or PDEA forensic or
crime laboratory to the place of seizure/
confiscation of the subject items or office of
the apprehending officer/ team requires
several hours of travel, copy of the facsimile
or
any
electronic
transmission
of
the
certification or chemistry report of the
laboratory examination results issued to the
apprehending officer/ team for submission to
the prosecutors office concerned shall be
sufficient copy of laboratory report for the
filing of
criminal charge/s with the
prosecutors office.

Thereafter, the original

certification
or
chemistry
report shall be claimed and
forwarded immediately by the
apprehending officer/ team to
the prosecutors office.

In any case, the chain of custody of the

seized/ confiscated items received from
the apprehending officer/ team, and
examined in the forensic or crime
laboratory shall be observed, where it
shall document the chain of custody
each time a specimen is handled,
transferred or presented in court until
its disposal, and every individual in the
chain shall be identified following the
laboratory control and chain of custody
form.

To
expedite
the
immediate
disposition and destruction of the
plant sources of dangerous drugs at
the eradication site, the seizing
officer or forensic chemist shall get
and preserve their representative
samples, after their seizure and
confiscation, and perform field or
screening test at the site, as far as
practicable. The release of the
certification or chemistry report
shall be after the confirmatory test
of the samples examined.

The requirement in Sec 84(f), IRR of RA

No. 9165 for the PDEA to establish forensic
laboratories up to the provincial and city
level has not been met up to the moment.
Hence, the PNP and NBI forensic or crime
laboratories in the regions or provinces and
cities will have to assist and examine the
seized drug/ chemical items in support of
the PDEA.

Sec 21(h) of the IRR of RA No. 9165, which serves as a

transitory provision, states that in the meantime that the
PDEA has no forensic laboratories and/or evidence
rooms, as well as the necessary personnel of its own in
any area of its jurisdiction, the existing National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI) and Philippine National Police (PNP)
forensic laboratories shall continue to examine or conduct
screening and confirmatory tests on the seized/
surrendered evidence whether these be dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, instruments, paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment; and the NBI and the PNP
shall continue to have custody of such evidence for use in
court and until disposed of, burned or destroyed in
accordance with the foregoing rules: [Emphasis supplied]

The provision clarifies that what supports the

criminal charge whether the seized drug or chemical
is dangerous drug or has substance of controlled
chemical is only the qualitative examination.
Quantitative examination to know the purity of
the seized evidence in the prosecution of drug
offenses is necessary only when RA No. 9165
specifically requires for it. For offenses prescribed in
Sections 4, 5, 11 and 13 of RA No. 9165,
quantitative examination is unnecessary for their
prosecution.

Sections 3 and 6 (chain of custody) of Board

Regulation No. 2, Series of 2003, requires
laboratory personnel to document the chain of
custody each time a specimen is handled or
transferred until its disposal; the board regulation
also requires identification of the individuals in this
part of the chain. The records of the case are bereft
of details showing that this board regulation was
ever complied with; the records also do not indicate
how the specimen was handled after the laboratory
examination and the identity of the person who had
the custody of the shabu before its presentation in
court. [People v. Denoman, supra]

THE "SAVING
CLAUSE"

Section 21, RA 9165

(IRR)

xxx
a) xxx Provided, further, that noncompliance of 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
and custody over said items; xxx

JULIUS CACAO vs. People

G.R. No. 180870; January 22, 2010

The failure to establish the chain of

custody is fatal to the prosecutions
case. There can be no crime of illegal
possession of a prohibited drug when
nagging doubts persist on whether the
item
confiscated
was
the
same
specimen examined and established to be
the prohibited drug.[31]

JULIUS CACAO vs. People

G.R. No. 180870; January 22, 2010

In People v. Casimiro, citing People v. Mapa,

we acquitted the accused for failure of the
prosecution to establish the identity of the
prohibited drug which constitutes the
corpus delicti. Equally true in Zarraga v.
People, we also acquitted the accused in
view of the prosecutions failure to
indubitably show the identity of the shabu.

 While this Court recognizes substantial

adherence to the requirements of R.A.
People
vs.
FERNANDO
HABANA
9165 and its implementing rules and
G.R. No. 188900; March 5, 2010
regulations, not perfect adherence, is
what is demanded of police officers
attending to drugs cases, still, such
officers must present justifiable
reason for their imperfect conduct
and show that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items had
been preserved. Here, however, they
failed to meet these conditions. The
police
officers
offered
no
explanation for their failure to
observe the chain of custody rule.

to present every police

People
vs. FERNANDO
HABANA
officer,
messenger,
G.R. No. 188900; March 5, 2010
laboratory technician, and
storage personnel, the
entire chain of custody,
no matter how briefly
ones
possession
has
been. Each of them has
to
testify
that
the
substance,
although

People vs.

FERNANDO HABANA

G.R. No. 188900; March 5, 2010

Since the failure in this case

to comply with the procedure
in the custody of seized drugs
compromised the identity and
integrity of the items seized,
which is the corpus delicti of each
of the crimes charged against
Habana, his acquittal is in order.

of RA 9165 is not fatal as

long vs. as
there
is
a
People
ROLDAN
MORALES
G.R. No. 172873; March 19, 2010
justifiable
ground
therefore, for and as long
as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly
preserved
by
the
apprehending team, these
conditions were not met in
the case at bar.
No

People vs. RONALDO DE GUZMAN

G.R. No. 186498; March 26, 2010

The duty to prove the guilt of an

accused is reposed in the State. Law
enforcers and public officers have
the duty to preserve the chain of
custody over the seized drugs.
This guarantee of the integrity of the
evidence to be used against an
accused goes to the very heart of his
fundamental rights.
xxx

xxx
It is true that the IRR of R.A. No. 9165
People vs. RONALDO DE GUZMAN
provides
that the physical inventory of the
G.R. No. 186498; March 26, 2010
seized items may be done at the nearest
police station, if the same cannot be done
at the place where the items were seized.
However, it must be emphasized that the
IRR also provides 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.[29]

People vs. RONALDO DE GUZMAN

G.R. No. 186498; March 26, 2010

The failure to follow the procedure

mandated under R.A. No. 9165 and
its IRR must be adequately
explained. The justifiable ground
for non-compliance must be proven
as a fact. The court cannot
presume what these grounds are or
that they even exist.

 Accordingly,
noncompliance
with
the
People
vs. RONALDO
DE GUZMAN
G.R.
No. 186498; March 26,
2010
procedure
shall
not render
void and invalid the seizure
and custody of the drugs
only when: (1) such noncompliance is attended by
justifiable grounds; and (2)
the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly

People vs. RONALDO DE GUZMAN

[30]

People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 273.

G.R. No. 186498; March 26, 2010

dangerous drugs.
There must,
however, be justifiable grounds to
People
ALMORFE,
et. aland
warrant vs.
exception
therefrom,
G.R.
No. 181831; March
provided
that29, 2010
the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items
are
properly
preserved
by
the
apprehending officer/s.

People vs. ALMORFE, et. al

G.R. No. 181831; March 29, 2010

For the saving clause to apply, it is

important that the prosecution
should explain the reasons
behind the procedural lapses
and that the integrity and value of
the seized evidence had been
preserved:

case. These lapses, however, must be

recognized and explained in terms of
People
vs. grounds
ALMORFE,
et.
al
their
justifiable
and the
integrity
G.R. No.
181831; March 29,
2010
and
evidentiary
value
of the evidence
seized must be shown to have been
preserved. (italics in the original)

People vs. NORMAN SITCO , et.

al

G.R. No. 178202; May 14, 2010

Although the non-presentation of some of

the witnesses who can attest to an unbroken
chain of custody of evidence may, in some
instances, be excused, there should be a
justifying factor for the prosecution to
dispense with their testimonies. In
People v. Denoman, the Court discussed the
saving mechanism provided by Sec. 21(a),
Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 9165. Denoman explains

People vs. NORMAN SITCO , et.

al

G.R. No. 178202; May 14, 2010

that the aforementioned provision contains a

saving mechanism to ensure that not every
case of non-compliance will permanently
prejudice the prosecutions case. The
saving mechanism applies when the
prosecution recognizes and explains
the lapse or lapses in the prescribed
procedures. In this case, the prosecution
did not even acknowledge and discuss the
reasons for the missing links in the chain.

People vs. PETER M. CAMPOMANES, et.

al
G.R. No. 187741.August 9, 2010

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, noncompliance with said section 21 is not fatal as
long as there is a justifiable ground
therefor, and as long as the integrity and
the
evidentiary
value
of
the
confiscated/seized
items
are
properly
preserved by the apprehending team.27
Thus, the prosecution must demonstrate that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence
seized have been preserved.28

People vs. PETER M. CAMPOMANES, et.

al

We note that nowhere in the

prosecution evidence does it show the
justifiable ground which may excuse
the police operatives involved in the buybust operation in the case at bar from
complying with Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165, particularly the making of
the inventory and the photographing of
the drugs and drug paraphernalia
confiscated and/or seized. However,
such omission shall not render accusedappellants arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated
from
him
as

G.R. No. 187741.August 9, 2010

People vs. ALEJANDRO

G.R. No. 176350. August 10, 2011

Lest the chain of custody rule be

misunderstood, we clarify that noncompliance
with
the
prescribed
procedural
requirements
does
not
necessarily render the seizure and
custody of the items void and invalid; the
seizure may still be held to be valid,
provided that (a) there is a justifiable
ground for the non-compliance, and (b)
the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are shown to have been

People vs. ALEJANDRO

G.R. No. 176350. August 10, 2011

prosecution did not even attempt to offer

any justification for the failure of the
police to follow the prescribed procedures
in the handling of the seized items. As we
held in People v. Ronaldo De Guzman y
Danzil,[50] the failure to follow the
procedure mandated under R.A. No.
9165 and its IRR must be adequately
explained. The justifiable ground for the
non-compliance must be proven as a fact.
The Court cannot presume what these
grounds are or that they even exist.

Thank
You!