Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pp. vs. Arnold Martinez, Et Al. G.R. No. 191366, Dec. 13, 2010. Chain of Custody. Drugs Case

    Uploaded by

    Sharmen Dizon Gallenero
    340 views4 pages
    The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is not authorized by law, and (iii) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug.25 Additionally, this being a case for violation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the crime is (iv) the possession of the dangerous drug must have occurred during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is not authorized by law, and (iii) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug.25 Additionally, this being a case for violation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the crime is (iv) the possession of the dangerous drug must have occurred during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    340 views4 pages

    Pp. vs. Arnold Martinez, Et Al. G.R. No. 191366, Dec. 13, 2010. Chain of Custody. Drugs Case

    Uploaded by

    Sharmen Dizon Gallenero
    The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is not authorized by law, and (iii) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug.25 Additionally, this being a case for violation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the crime is (iv) the possession of the dangerous drug must have occurred during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    SECOND DIVISION
    G.R. No. 191366

    December 13, 2010

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,


    vs.
    ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y NGELES, EDGAR DIZON Y FERRER, REZIN
    MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO, and RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, AccusedAppellants.
    DECISION
    MENDOZA, J.:
    The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs are:
    (i) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is
    not authorized by law, and (iii) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
    dangerous drug.25 Additionally, this being a case for violation of Section 13 of
    R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the crime is (iv) the possession of the
    dangerous drug must have occurred during a party, or at a social gathering or
    meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.
    The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal
    possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, a condition sine qua non for
    conviction. In order to establish the existence of the drug, its chain of
    custodymust be sufficiently established. The chain of custody requirement is
    essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are
    removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized
    drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the
    court.26 Malillin v. People was the first in a growing number of cases to explain
    the importance of chain of custody in dangerous drugs cases, to wit:
    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 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.27
    Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, 28 defines chain of custody
    as follows:
    b. "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 of each stage, from the time of
    seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
    presentation in court for 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 date and time when such transfer of
    custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence,
    and the final disposition;
    Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, provides for safeguards for
    the protection of the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized, to wit:
    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
    confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
    manner:
    (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
    immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a

    representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
    elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
    and be given a copy thereof.
    People v. Habana thoroughly discusses the proper procedure for the custody of
    seized or confiscated items in dangerous drugs cases in order to ensure their
    identity and integrity, as follows:
    Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a
    supervising officer, who would then send it by courier to the police crime
    laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession of the substance
    changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the
    substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic container and seal
    the same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannot be removed without leaving
    a tear on the plastic container. At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized
    substance and the procedure he observed to preserve its integrity until it reaches
    the crime laboratory.
    If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in one and
    seal the same. In this way the substance would assuredly reach the laboratory in
    the same condition it was seized from the accused. Further, after the laboratory
    technician tests and verifies the nature of the substance in the container, he
    should put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it again with a new
    seal since the police officers seal has been broken. At the trial, the technician
    can then describe the sealed condition of the plastic container when it was
    handed to him and testify on the procedure he took afterwards to preserve its
    integrity.
    If the sealing of the seized substance 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.29
    Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165
    further elaborates, and provides for, the possibility of non-compliance with the
    prescribed procedure:

    (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs
    shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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,
    a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
    elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
    and be given a copy thereof: 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,
    further 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. [Emphasis supplied]
    Accordingly, non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not
    necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid,
    provided that (i) there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (ii) the
    integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this
    case, however, no justifiable ground is found availing, and it is apparent that
    there was a failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
    seized items to ensure the identity of the corpus delicti from the time of seizure to
    the time of presentation in court. A review of the testimonies of the prosecution
    witnesses and the documentary records of the case reveals irreparably broken
    links in the chain of custody.

    You might also like