NADELA, JOHN MICHAEL, B.

BSCRIM-3D

CASE DIGEST

MARIO NISPEROS Y PADILLA v. PEOPLE

GR No. 250927, Nov 29, 2022

Facts:
-Accused MARIO NISPEROS y PADILLA, without authority of law and without any
permit to sell, transport, deliver, and distribute dangerous drugs, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, sell and distribute one (1) piece heat (-) sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE, commonly known as 'shabu', a dangerous drug weighing 0.7603
grams.
- the RTC promulgated its judgment dated March 13, 2018 finding petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and sentencing him to suffer life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. It thereafter denied his motion for
reconsideration.

Issue: No. whether or not the chain of custody was complete.

Ruling:
Where a substance later analyzed as heroin was handled by two police officers prior to
examination who however did not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of
the exhibit at the time it was in their p o s s e s s i o n
w a s e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e p r o s e c u t i o n evidence, the court pointing out that
the white powder seized could have been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar
or baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can show by records or testimony,
the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into the
possession of police officers until it was test ed in the
laboratory to determine its composition, testimony of the state as to the
laboratory's findings
isinadmissible. A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is thatt h e y a r e n o t r e a d
ily identifiable
as in fact they ares u b j e c t t o s c i e n t i f i c a n a l y s i s t o d e t e r m i n e
t h e i r composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to
the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of
custody over the same there could have been tampering,
alteration or s u b s t i t u t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e s f r o m o t h e r c a s e s — b y acci
dent or otherwise — in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar
evidence was submitted
for laboratory testing. A mere fleeting glance at the records readily raisessignificant
doubts as to the identity of the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from
petitioner. Of the people who came into direct contact with the seized objects,
o n l y E s t e r n o n a n d A r r o y o t e s t i f i e d f o r t h e s p e c i f i c purpose
of establishing the identity of the evidence. Gallinera, to whom Esternon
supposedly handed over the confiscated sachets for recording and marking, as well as
Garcia, the person to whom Esternon directly handed over the seized items
for chemical analysis at
the crime laboratory, were not presented in court to
establish the circumstances under which they handled the subject items. Any reasonable
mind might then ask the question: Are the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from
petitioner the very same objects laboratory tested and offered in court as evidence? The
prosecution's evidence is incomplete to provide
anaffirmative answer. Considering that it was Gallineraw h o r e c o r d e d a n
d m a r k e d t h e s e i z e d i t e m s , h i s testimony in court is crucial to affirm
whether the exhibits were the same items handed over to him by Esternon at the place of
seizure and acknowledge the initials marked thereon as his own. The same is true of
Garcia who could have, but nevertheless failed, to testify on the circumstances
under which she received the items from Esternon, what she did with them during the
time they were in her possession until before she delivered the same to Arroyo
for analysis. The prosecution was thus unsuccessful in discharging its burden of
establishing the identity of the seized items because it failed
t o o f f e r n o t o n l y t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Gallinera and Garcia but also any sufficient
explanationf o r s u c h f a i l u r e . I n e f f e c t , t h e r e i s n o r e a s o n a b l e guaran
ty as to the integrity of the exhibits inasmuch as it failed to rule out the possibility
of substitution of the exhibits, which cannot but inure to its own detriment.
This holds true not only with respect to the two filled sachets but also to the five
sachets allegedly containing morsels of shabu.
Moreover, Section 21of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165
clearly outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs. In a language too
plain to require a different construction, it mandates that
the officer acquiring initial custody of d r u g s u n d e r a s e a r c h w a r r a n
t m u s t c o n d u c t t h e photographing and the physical inventory of the item at the
place where the warrant has been served. Esternon deviated from this procedure. It
was elicited from him that at the close of the search of petitioner's house,
heb r o u g h t t h e s e i z e d i t e m s i m m e d i a t e l y t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n f o r t h e
a l l e g e d p u r p o s e o f m a k i n g a " t r u e inventory" thereof, but there
appears to be no reason why a true inventory could not be made in
petitioner’s house when in fact the apprehending team was able to record and mark
the seized items and there and then prepare a seizure receipt.

PEOPLE V BANGCOLA
GR No. 237802, March 18, 2019

Facts:
On June 20, 2014, a confidential informant reported to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs,
Office of the Marikina City Police Station, that appellant was engaged in illegal drug
activities at Barangay Tumana, Marikina City. A buy-bust team was then formed
consisting of Police Inspector Jerry Flores (P/Insp. Flores) as the team leader, SPO1
Basang as the poseur-buyer, and several other police officers as back-up operatives.
SPO1 Basang was given two (2) pieces of marked Five Hundred Peso (P500.00) bills to
be used as buy-bust money. The pre-arranged signal was the lighting of a cigarette upon
consummation of the sale.

On even date, at about 10:30 in the evening, the buy-bust team and the confidential
informant proceeded to the target area. While the rest of the buy-bust team hid and
positioned themselves, SPO1 Basang and the confidential informant entered an alley
where they saw two (2) men. The confidential informant then introduced SPO1 Basang
to appellant while Pimba introduced himself as "Salim." Pimba asked SPO1 Basang how
much he would purchase to which he replied "P1,000.00." Pimba told appellant "Mac,
ikaw na ang magbigay" while handing him a red body bag. SPO1 Basang gave the two
marked P500.00 bills to appellant. Appellant then brought out a brown-striped pouch
and took out there from one small plastic sachet, which he handed to SPO1 Basang and
said "Pare, ito yung halagang isang libo." At that moment, SPO1 Basang lit a cigarette,
which prompted the buy-bust team to rush towards the crime scene. SPO1 Basang
introduced himself as a police officer, grabbed appellant's right arm, and arrested
appellant. Pimba, however, managed to escape. The red body bag, the brown-striped
pouch, the buy-bust money, and other cash in his possession, amounting to P1,990.00,
were confiscated from appellant. Thirteen (13) more small plastic sachets containing
white crystalline substance were found in the possession of appellant. SPO1 Basang
marked the plastic sachet purchased from appellant with "MB-BUYBUST 6/20/14" in
the latter's presence.

Thereafter, P/Insp. Flores decided to continue the inventory and marking of the other
pieces of evidence at the Barangay Hall of Tumana because it was dark at the alley where
appellant was arrested and appellant's relatives were already causing a commotion at
the time.

City Councilor Ronnie Acuña (Acuña) and Cesar Barquilla (Barquilla) of Remate tabloid
newspaper were present during the inventory, marking, and photograph-taking of
evidence at the barangay hall. The thirteen (13) plastic sachets were marked as "MB-1
6/20/14" to "MB-13 6/20/14." The Inventory of Evidence [10] of the seized items was
signed by Acuña and Barquilla while appellant refused to sign the same. The Chain of
Custody Form was then prepared by SPO1 Basang.

Appellant was thereafter brought to the police station. A request for laboratory
examination by the PNP Crime Laboratory was prepared by P/Insp. Flores to determine
the presence of any form of dangerous drugs in the seized items. SPO1 Basang turned
over the pieces of evidence to PCI Libres for the purpose of forensic examination. [13]

In her Report dated June 21, 2014, PCI Libres confirmed that the small plastic sachet
marked "MB-BUYBUST 6/20/14," which weighed 0.20 gram, was positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The thirteen (13) small plastic sachets
additionally found in the possession of appellant and marked as "MB-1 6/20/14" to
"MB-13 6/20/14", with a total weight of 34.12 grams, were also found positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented appellant as its sole witness. He testified that, around 10 or 11
o'clock in the evening of June 20, 2014, he was sitting alone at the end of the bridge of
Barangay Tumana, Marikina City. Suddenly, two police officers approached him and
verified his identity. Appellant was then ordered to board a vehicle and was taken to a
vacant lot where several drug paraphernalia were shown to him. Afterwards, appellant
was brought to the barangay hall and the police station. The police officers told him that
he would be imprisoned despite not having committed any offense. On cross-
examination, appellant denied that he was with Pimba at the time of his arrest and that
there were items recovered from him.

Issue: Whether the guilt of appellant for the crimes charged has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
n its January 26, 2017 Consolidated Decision, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In Criminal Case No.
2014-4356-D-MK, appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment
and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 2014-4357-D-MK,
appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and ordered to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
The RTC ruled that there was satisfactory compliance with the requirements of the law
on the proper chain of custody of dangerous drugs. Although the confiscated drugs were
not inventoried, marked, and photographed at the place where appellant was arrested,
the prosecution gave a valid justification for the same, such that the place was not well-
lit and the relatives of appellant were starting to cause a commotion at the time. The
RTC held that the marking of the confiscated drugs at the barangay hall did not affect
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The RTC also underscored that
appellant's defense of denial was unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence,
hence, deserved no credence at all.

PEOPLE V DAVID
GR No. 260990, June 21, 2023

Facts:
On August 16, 2015, Police Officer 1 Joey Santos (PO1 Santos) and Senior Police Officer
1 Rommel Buduan (SPO1 Buduan) were at their office in Samal Municipal Police
Station, Samal, Bataan, when a confidential informant (CI) reported that accused-
appellant was engaged in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.PO1 Santos and SPO1
Buduan brought the CI to their Chief of Police, Police Senior Inspector Alfredo Escalada
Solomon, Jr. (PSI Solomon), to relay the information. PSI Solomon then instructed
Police Officer 3 Rodrigo Imperial (PO3 Imperial) to coordinate with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office III for the conduct of a buy-bust operation
against accused-appellant. Thereafter, a buy-bust team was created wherein PO1 Santos
and SPO1 Buduan were designated as the poseur-buyer and backup officer, respectively.
PSI Solomon briefed PO1 Santos and SPO1 Buduan on how the buy-bust operation
would be conducted. The CI was also present during the briefing. PSI Solomon provided
PO1 Santos with a ₱500.00 bill which would be used to buy "shabu" from accused-
appellant. PO1 Santos marked the ₱500.00 bill with "JCS," the initials of his name.
After the briefing, the team proceeded to the target area. PO1 Santos and the CI met
with the accused-appellant while SPO1 Buduan positioned himself around 20 meters
away from the scene.The CI introduced PO1 Santos to accused-appellant, who
immediately asked for payment. PO1 Santos handed to accused-appellant the pre-
marked ₱500.00 bill. In turn, accused-appellant handed to PO1 Santos a heat-sealed
transparent sachet of suspected shabu. PO1 Santos placed the sachet in his right pocket.
After which, PO1 Santos held the hand of accused-appellant and introduced himself as a
police officer. SPO1 Buduan then rushed to the scene. PO1 Santos and SPO1 Buduan
introduced themselves to accused-appellant and arrested him.
Issue:
The core issue for the Court's consideration is whether accused-appellant is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

Ruling:

In the Joint Decision24 dated March 28, 2016, the RTC found accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.

The RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove, with the required quantum of
proof, all the essential elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs. It ruled that the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved. It stressed that PO1
Santos' narration of what actually transpired on August 16, 2015, from the moment the
CI disclosed the illegal activities of accused-appellant up to the time the latter was
arrested, deserves great respect and credence as coming directly from a police officer
who enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duty.25

As to the charge of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the RTC held that another
plastic sachet of "shabu" marked as Exhibit "N" was recovered from accused-appellant
as a result of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. It ruled that it was convinced that the
prosecution presented proof beyond reasonable doubt that Exhibit "N" which was
recovered from accused-appellant was the same "shabu" confiscated, examined, and
presented in court as evidence.

ISSUES:
What is the chain of custody rule?
The chain of custody rule is a legal principle that refers to the chronological
documentation or paper trail that shows the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis,
and disposition of physical or electronic evidence. This rule is crucial in legal
proceedings, especially in criminal cases, to ensure the integrity and admissibility of
evidence in court.
By maintaining a clear and unbroken chain of custody, the prosecution can establish
that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence that was originally collected at
the crime scene, without any tampering, alteration, or substitution. Each person who
comes into contact with the evidence must document their handling of it, including the
date, time, and purpose of the transfer.
If there are any gaps or inconsistencies in the chain of custody, it can raise doubts about
the authenticity and reliability of the evidence, potentially leading to its exclusion from
the court proceedings. Therefore, law enforcement agencies and forensic professionals
must follow strict protocols to preserve the chain of custody and ensure the integrity of
the evidence.

Why is it (to prove the unbroken chain of custody) important in drug cases?
In drug cases, proving an unbroken chain of custody is crucial for several reasons:

1. Ensuring Evidence Integrity

The chain of custody verifies that the evidence presented in court is the same
evidence that was collected at the crime scene. It helps ensure that the evidence has
not been tampered with, contaminated, or altered in any way.

2. Maintaining Trust in the Legal Process

The integrity of the judicial system relies on the authenticity and reliability of the
evidence. A well-documented chain of custody reassures the court and the jury that
the evidence is credible and has been handled correctly.

3. Preventing Tampering and Contamination

Drug evidence can be easily compromised. Detailed documentation of every person
who handled the evidence and the circumstances under which it was handled helps
prevent any possibility of tampering or contamination.

4. Establishing a Reliable Timeline

The chain of custody creates a clear timeline of the evidence’s journey from
collection to courtroom. This timeline is essential to demonstrate that the evidence
has been properly secured and preserved throughout the investigative process.

5. Legal Admissibility Courts

often require proof of an unbroken chain of custody to admit evidence. If the chain is
broken or improperly documented, the defense may challenge the admissibility of
the evidence, potentially leading to its exclusion from the case.
 6. Protecting Rights of the Accused
Maintaining a strict chain of custody ensures that the accused’s right to a fair trial is
upheld. It prevents wrongful convictions based on unreliable or tampered evidence.

Overall, proving an unbroken chain of custody in drug cases is essential to uphold the
legal standards of evidence handling, protect the rights of the accused, and maintain
public confidence in the judicial system.

What are the exceptions under the chain of custody rule?

While the chain of custody rule is crucial in ensuring the integrity of evidence, there are
certain exceptions and circumstances where the rule may be relaxed or where strict
adherence is not possible. These exceptions often depend on the jurisdiction and specific
legal standards. Common exceptions include:

1. Substantial Compliance
Some courts accept substantial rather than absolute compliance with chain of
custody requirements. If the prosecution can show that the chain of custody is
largely intact and that any gaps or discrepancies are minor and do not suggest
tampering or contamination, the evidence may still be admissible.

2. Presumption of Regularity
In some cases, there is a presumption that law enforcement officials and other
custodians have properly handled the evidence unless there is a clear indication to
the contrary. This presumption can sometimes fill minor gaps in the chain of
custody.

3. Immaterial Breaks
Courts may overlook breaks in the chain of custody if the breaks are deemed
immaterial and do not cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence. For instance, if the
evidence was briefly unaccounted for but there is no reasonable possibility that it
was tampered with, the court may still admit it.

4. Unique or Easily Identifiable Evidence

 When the evidence in question is unique or easily identifiable (such as a specific
firearm or a large quantity of drugs with unique packaging), courts may be more
lenient with chain of custody requirements. The distinct nature of the evidence can
sometimes mitigate concerns about its identity and integrity.

5. Testimonial and Documentary Evidence

In some cases, strong testimonial or documentary evidence can compensate for
weaknesses in the chain of custody. For example, detailed testimonies from credible
witnesses about how the evidence was handled and stored can help establish its
integrity despite minor chain of custody issues.

6. Good Faith Efforts

When law enforcement and other custodians have made good faith efforts to
maintain the chain of custody but unavoidable circumstances (such as emergencies
or technical difficulties) have led to minor lapses, courts may still admit the
evidence.

These exceptions are not universally applicable and depend heavily on the specific facts
of the case and the discretion of the court. The overarching principle is that the
evidence's reliability and integrity must be preserved to a degree that satisfies the court's
requirements for admissibility.
What are the adopted measures/guidelines for the marking/inventory of
seized drugs/paraphernalia?
Measures and guidelines for the marking and inventory of seized drugs and
paraphernalia are crucial for maintaining the integrity of the evidence and ensuring an
unbroken chain of custody. These procedures vary by jurisdiction but generally follow
some common principles. Here are the typical steps and guidelines adopted:

1. Initial Seizure and Marking

- Immediate Marking
Seized items should be marked immediately at the scene of the seizure. This often
involves placing unique identifiers such as case numbers, seizure dates, and initials of
the seizing officers directly on the evidence packaging.
- Photographic Evidence
 Photographs of the seized items should be taken at the scene to document their
condition and location at the time of seizure.
- Detailed Notes
Officers should take detailed notes describing the seized items, including their
quantities, packaging, and any distinguishing features.

2. Inventory and Documentation

- Inventory List
An inventory list should be created as soon as possible, listing all items seized, along
with their descriptions, quantities, and unique identifiers. Each item should be assigned
an evidence number.
- Receipt for Seized Property
The individual from whom the items are seized (if applicable) should be provided with a
receipt detailing the items taken, ensuring transparency and accountability.
- Chain of Custody Form
A chain of custody form should be initiated, documenting every individual who handles
the evidence, along with the dates and times of transfer.

3. Packaging and Storage

- Secure Packaging
Seized items should be securely packaged to prevent contamination, tampering, or
degradation. This often involves using tamper-evident bags or containers.
- Labeling
Each package should be clearly labeled with the unique identifiers, the names and
signatures of the seizing officers, and any other relevant information.
- Sealed Evidence Bags
Evidence bags or containers should be sealed with tamper-evident tape, and the seals
should be initialed and dated by the person sealing the evidence.

4. Transportation and Storage

- Controlled Environment
Seized items should be transported to a secure evidence storage facility as soon as
possible, where they are logged into an evidence management system.
- Restricted Access
Access to the evidence storage facility should be restricted to authorized personnel only.
Logs should be kept of anyone accessing the facility or handling the evidence.

5. Documentation of Analysis
- Lab Analysis
If the seized drugs are sent for forensic analysis, the transfer to the lab should be
documented, including details of the person transporting the evidence and the receiving
analyst.
- Analysis Reports
The forensic lab should provide detailed reports on the analysis, including the methods
used and the findings. These reports should be linked to the chain of custody
documentation.

6.Court Procedures
- Presentation in Court
When presenting the evidence in court, the chain of custody documentation should be
provided to establish that the evidence has been properly handled from seizure to
presentation.
- Continued Custody
After court proceedings, the evidence should continue to be stored securely until it is
either returned, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of according to legal requirements.

These measures and guidelines help ensure that the seized drugs and paraphernalia are
properly documented, securely handled, and reliably presented in court, maintaining
the integrity and admissibility of the evidence.