Chain of Custody Flashcards
What are the LInks in the Chain of Custody?
- Seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused;
- Turnover of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
- Turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
- Turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug by the forensic chemist to court. (People v. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590, 27 Mar. 2017)
Procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs (Sec. 21)
Apprehending team shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, make a physical inventory and photograph of the same in the presence of:
- Accused or the person/s from which such items were confiscated and/or seized;
- His/her representative or counsel; WITH
- A representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) OR the media;
AND 4. Any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy.
(People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, 27 Nov. 2019
B.
The objects seized must be submitted to PDEA for qualitative and quantitative examination within 24 hours from the confiscation/seizure.
C.
The forensic laboratory examiner is required to issue within 24 hours after receipt of the drugs a certification of the forensic laboratory examination results which shall be done under oath.
D.
After filing of the criminal case, the court shall, within 72 hours, conduct an ocular inspection and the PDEA shall within 24 hours proceed with the destruction of the same.
E.
Dangerous Drugs Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning to be submitted to the court. Also, to be submitted are the representative samples (only minimum quantity) of the substances in the custody of PDEA.
Q: Banding was arrested at Mercury Drug Store Lagro branch in Quezon City for illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Section 5, R.A. No. 9165).
The dangerous drugs sachets containing white crystalline substance were marked by PO2 Inway with AB-20-09-10. To avoid the on-going commotion in the area, the team proceeded to Camp Karingal which is 17 kilometers car ride away from the place of arrest. There, physical inventory, and photographing required under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was conducted in the presence of Banding, the buybust team, and a media representative. After the inventory, PO3 Corona prepared the inventory receipt for “a sachet containing marijuana fruiting tops.” This was submitted to the QCPD Crime Laboratory.
Banding was later on charged with violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. Banding argues that he cannot be convicted due to lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs seized. Can Banding be held criminally liable under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165?
A: Banding cannot be convicted under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 due to the lapses in the chain of custody procedure required under Section 21 of the same law. Section 21 requires strict compliance. The accuracy it requires goes into the covertness of buybust operation and the very nature of narcotic substance.
From the language of Section 21, the mandate to conduct inventory and take photographs “immediately after seizure and confiscation” necessarily means that these shall be accomplished at the place of arrest. When this is impracticable, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 allows for two (2) other options: at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. To sanction non-compliance, the prosecution must prove that the inventory was conducted in either practicable place.
The physical inventory and photographing of the drugs seized was not done in the place of arrest, but was done in Camp Karingal, which was impractical since it was 17 kilometers car ride away from the place of arrest. The clerical errors and discrepancies in the inventory receipt and the chemistry report cannot be dismissed since they cast doubt as to the origin of the drug seized. (People of the Philippines v. Banding, G.R. No. 2333470, 14 Aug. 2019)
In the case of People of the Philippines v. Ramos, the Supreme Court ruled that the witnesses’ absence at the time of seizure is not a justifiable ground for not immediately marking the items, since they should have at the onset, been present or near the place of seizure. Since the law requires the apprehending team to conduct the inventory in front of the required witnesses and immediately after seizure, this necessarily means that, in buy-bust operations, the required witnesses must be present at the time of seizure. (G.R. No. 225335, 28 Aug. 2019)
The phrase “immediately after seizure and confiscation” means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the law allows the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team/officer.
Q: Karlo was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. He questions his conviction by arguing that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses. He argues that the prosecution failed to establish compliance with the three-witness rule mandated by R.A. No. 9165. Furthermore, Karlo casts doubt on the validity of the search conducted in that the implementation of the search warrant was documented to begin at 4:30 A.M. while the seizure of the drugs was made at around 6:30 A.M. Such interval, Karlo claims, gave the police officers an opportunity to fabricate evidence against him. Do the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses warrant the reversal of the conviction of Karlo?
A: NO. As to the first argument, the fact that Cruz’s affidavit neglects to categorically mention the presence of DOJ representative Mendoza during the search operation does not run counter to his testimony. The perceived discrepancy neither affects the truth of the testimony of the prosecution witness nor discredits his positive identification of appellant. Besides, apart from the duly signed Certificate of Inventory and Certificate of orderly Search, it had already been stipulated and admitted by the parties that Mendoza was indeed a witness in the conduct of the search and inventory of the confiscated drugs. For this reason, such stipulation is already a judicial admission of the facts stipulated. Appellant is clearly beyond his bearings in disputing this judicially admitted fact. What is more, photographs were offered in evidence to prove that the necessary witnesses, including Mendoza, had been present during the search operation.
As to the second argument, the supposed inconsistency regarding the exact time the search warrant was implemented is, if at all, minor and without consequence. As argued by the appellee, the team had arrived at appellant’s house to implement the search warrant at 4:30 a.m. The police officers did not immediately search the residence because they still had to wait for the barangay officials and the media representatives. Such minor inconsistency does not warrant the reversal of appellant’s conviction. (Concepcion y Tabor v. People, G.R. No. 243345, 11 March 2019, J. Caguioa)
Integrity and Evidentiary Value of the Seized
Items
The prosecution is not required to elicit testimony from every custodian or from every person who had an opportunity to come in contact with the evidence sought to be admitted. As long as one of the chains testifies and his testimony negates the possibility of tampering and that the integrity of the evidence is preserved, his testimony alone is adequate to prove the chain of custody.
Failure to strictly comply with rules of procedure, however, does not ipso facto invalidate or render void the seizure and custody over the items. Minor deviations from the chain of custody rule Chain of Custody Rule are justified when the prosecution is able to show that:
- There is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and
- The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved (People v. Dumagay, G.R. No. 216753, 07 Feb. 2018)
Q: A buy-bust operation was conducted wherein PO2 Montales was designated as the poseurbuyer. The buy-bust team proceeded to Saunar’s residence. PO2 Montales introduced herself as a buyer of shabu and handed Saunar the marked money. After a brief conversation, Saunar went inside the house. She returned moments later “with two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance.” PO2 Montales examined the plastic sachets and gave the pre-arranged signal by removing her sunglasses. This indicated the consummation of the transaction to the other members of the buybust team. PO2 Montales brought the seized items to the crime laboratory for scientific examination. The contents of the two (2) plastic sachets weighed 0.0496 grams and 0.0487 grams. They tested positive for shabu. Is Saunar liable even if only a miniscule amount is alleged to have been seized from him?
A: NO. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the transaction actually took place by establishing the following elements: “(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.” Aside from this, the corpus delicti must be presented as evidence in court. In cases involving dangerous drugs, “the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself.” Although strict compliance with the Chain of Custody Rule may be excused provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, a more exacting standard is required of law enforcers when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs are alleged to have been seized from the accused.
In this case, only 0.0496 grams and 0.0487 grams or a total of 0.0983 grams of shabu were allegedly taken from accused-appellant. Such a miniscule amount of drugs is highly susceptible to tampering and contamination. A careful review of the factual findings of the lower courts shows that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of preserving the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from accused appellant. The prosecution failed to establish who held the seized items from the moment they were taken from accused-appellant until they were brought to the police station. The designated poseur-buyer, PO2 Montales, did not mention who took custody of the seized items for safekeeping. (People v. Saunar, G.R. No. 207396, 09 Aug. 2017) Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contrabands are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the markings as reference. (People v. Salim, G.R. No. 208093, 20 Feb. 2017.
Q: A buy-bust operation was conducted by the police where PO1 Aure, as the poseur-buyer, was accompanied by the informant. The team proceeded to the whereabouts of Holgado. PO1 Aure handed Holgado two marked Php 100 bills. Holgado called Misarez. Misarez stepped out of the restroom and handed a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance to PO1 Aure. PO1 Aure examined the sachet’s contents and took out his cellphone signaling that the sale of drugs had been consummated. The police operatives then approached PO1 Aure and apprehended Holgado and Misarez. PO3 Abuyme prepared an inventory of the seized items.
PO1 Aure supposedly marked the plastic sachet handed to him by Misarez at the site of the buy-bust operation. Following their arrest, Holgado and Misarez were charged with violating Secs. 5 (Sale of dangerous drugs), 11 (Possession of dangerous drugs), and 12 (Possession of drug paraphernalia) of R.A. No. 9165. RTC found Holgado and Misarez guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and acquitted them of the charges pertaining to Sec. 11 as the drugs supposedly seized were not introduced in evidence. Holgado, was also acquitted of the charges relating to Sec. 12 of as the paraphernalia to which PO2 Castulo testified to in court were different from those indicated in the inventory supposedly made.
CA affirmed the conviction. Is the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties applicable in this case?
A: The presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be applied in this case. Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. (People of the Philippines v. Holgado, G.R. No. 207992, 11 Aug. 2014)
