Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pp. vs. Arnold Martinez, Et Al. G.R. No. 191366, Dec. 13, 2010. Chain of Custody. Drugs Case
Pp. vs. Arnold Martinez, Et Al. G.R. No. 191366, Dec. 13, 2010. Chain of Custody. Drugs Case
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 191366
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.