Chain of Custody
Chain of Custody
II. “ILLUSTRATION OF
I. DEFINITION OF CHAIN OF III. JURISPRUDENCE ON
CHAIN OF CUSTODY”
CUSTODY: “THREE-LINKS”
(three-links)
[Page 175 of Revised PNP Operational Procedures (2021); and Page 6 of Unified Manual in the Investigation and
Prosecution of Drug Cases; Page 1 of Board Regulation No. 1 Series of 2002 re: Guidelines on the Custody and
Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment)
Chain of custody has been defined as “the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs
at each stage, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until it is
presented to the court.”
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
DEFINITION
Page 87 of Unified Manual in the Investigation and Prosecution of Drug Cases.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
THREE LINKSILLUSTRATION
As for the second and third links in the chain of custody, records show that while Agent Sarasua, who is
the apprehending officer, did not turn-over the seized item to the investigating officer, it was,
however, established that she took sole custody of the seized item until she personally delivered the
same to Forensic Chemist Perez. xxx the seized item did not change hands until its delivery to Forensic
Chemist Perez. Thus, the court a quo's ruling, which was thereafter upheld by the appellate court, is proper.
HELD: The accused-appellant Mila Somira was found GUILTY of violation of Sections 5, Article II of RA
9165 as amended by RA 10640.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
Agent Otic turned over the dangerous drugs to Forensic Chemist Loreto Bravo. We note that Agent
Otic did not turn over the seized item to an investigator at the police station but remained in
custody of the same until he turned it over to Forensic Chemist Bravo for qualitative examination. This
is not a breach of the chain of custody.
HELD: The Appellants Joeffrey Macaspac and Bryan Marcelo were found GUILTY of illegal
transportation of methamphetamine hydrochloride under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
In People v. Santos, NBI Agent Saul was the one who seized the marijuana leaves and dangerous
drugs paraphernalia from the accused. He, too, marked and inventoried the seized items. He did not turn
them over to an investigator as he immediately submitted the same to the forensic chemist for
qualitative examination. The Court ruled there was no breach in the chain of custody and the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item remained intact from their seizure to their presentation as evidence in
court. (Ibid)
HELD: The accused-appellants Ronaldo Santos was found GUILTY of violation Sections 11 and 12,
Article II of RA 9165.
Observation: It appears from the discussions in the aforesaid jurisprudence that four links is the
general rule.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
JURISPRUDENCE RE: RATIOCINATION OF SECOND LINK
Dahil explained the importance of the second link in the chain of custody: The second link in the chain of custody
is the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who
seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime
laboratory for testing. This is a necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall
conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the
investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents. xxx
In People v. Remigio, the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the chain of custody as the
apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The apprehending officer kept the alleged
shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist. The deviation from the links
in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said case. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
In this case, the prosecution offered no justification as to why the seized items seemingly went straight from the
apprehending officer to the forensic chemist, completely bypassing an investigating officer. xxx The prosecution offered no
such justification here.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
JURISPRUDENCE WHEREIN THE SEIZING OFFICER HIMSELF WAS THE ONE WHO TURNED-OVER THE
SEIZED DRUG ITEMS TO THE CRIME LABORATORY
The evidence established beyond cavil that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were
preserved. The prosecution was able to prove that, from the time of seizure and confiscation, SPO2 Gilbuena
remained in possession of the drugs, until their marking and inventory, and their delivery to the crime laboratory for
examination, constituting the first and second links. The confiscated drugs were received by PO1 Paltep who later
turned over the same to PCI Banogon who conducted a qualitative and quantitative examination, which constituted
the third link. PCI Banogon issued Chemistry Report No. D-605-201679 stating that the white crystalline substance in
the plastic sachets yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The seized items stayed
with PCI Banogon until these were presented in court, which constituted the fourth link. The elements of the crimes
as charged, as well as compliance with the chain of custody rule, had been duly established.
HELD: The accused Danny Taglucop was found GUILTY of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Art. II, RA 9165 as
amended by RA 10640.
THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE AS SIGNATORY IN THE REQUEST FOR LABORATORY EXAMINATION OF SEIZED DRUG ITEM WAS
CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT AS TO HAVE TAKEN CUSTODY OF SUCH ITEM ALBEIT MOMENTARILY.
In the present case, PO2 Casais maintains that upon reaching the police station, he kept the seized drugs inside
the evidence room before turning it over to the crime laboratory. In certain cases, the apprehending officer and
investigating officer may be the same. In such case, he could have just manifested that he was the one who conducted the
investigation and prepared the necessary documents for the filing of a criminal case against accused-appellant. However,
this Court notes that the Request for Laboratory Examination was made by another officer, Police Chief Inspector Dixon
B. Berango (PCI Berango). However, he was not mentioned at any point during the testimony of PO2 Casais. xxx Even if
PCI Berango's custody over the seized drugs was only momentary, this should have been properly documented to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
HELD: The accused Kevin Dayap was acquitted for violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
Comment/Recommendation:
The template for Request for Laboratory Analysis/Chemical Analysis should include a categorical
statement that the actual custodian of the drug specimen prior to submission for the said test is the seizing
officer or Investigator. This is to preempt similar occurrence in People v. Kevin Dayap, G.R. No. 248531, July 4,
2022 wherein the Supreme Court noted (assumed) that the signatory in the Request for Laboratory
Examination also took custody of the drug specimen even momentarily; and thus, must be reflected also in the
documentation of the chain of custody;
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
From the foregoing, the following are the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-
bust situation:
The first link is the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused
by the apprehending officer;
The second link refers to the turn-over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;
The third link pertains to the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and
The fourth link is the turn-over and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court.
Note: The first link was not established by the prosecution as the marking was not immediately made upon
seizure and at the place of confiscation, and the inventory was not conducted immediately after seizure, in violation
of the guidelines prevailing in jurisprudence, as consolidated in Casa and Nisperos. The saving clause is inapplicable
since neither the prosecution nor the apprehending officers offered any justification for the non-compliance with the
procedure required under Section 21 of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
HELD: The accused Randel Villanueva was acquitted for violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165, as
amended.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
“In order to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, particularly our law enforcement officers, the
Court hereby adopts the following guidelines:
In the presence of the offender (unless the offender eluded the arrest);
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; and
3. In case of any deviation from the foregoing, the prosecution must positively acknowledge the same and
prove (1) justifiable ground/s for non-compliance and (2) the proper preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items
Note: The poseur-buyer failed to mark the seized items immediately upon confiscating it. In fact,
they were only marked during the inventory itself. No justifiable ground was proffered to excuse the belated
marking (half an hour delay in the marking and inventory). Since the first link of the chain was not
established, the SC find it unnecessary to discuss the other links of the chain. Verily, there was no chain to
speak of.
HELD: The accused Mario Nisperos was acquitted for violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165.
(Page 3 of Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of RA 9165 as
amended by RA 10640)
(Page 4 of Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of RA 9165 as
amended by RA 10640)
a) To ensure the preservation of the integrity and identity of the drug evidence, the chain of custody form
shall indicate:
b) The receipt of evidence must be acknowledged by all officers receiving the evidence, whether in the same or a
separate document. Such receipt shall form part of the case folder of the transmitting unit.
c) The evidence custodian, when applicable, must maintain a logbook that contains information on:
(1) The person who turned in the evidence for safekeeping;
(2) The date and time thereof;
(3) The person who received it;
(4) The person who requested the same for whatever purpose, who shall affix his/her name, signature, date and
time in the logbook. When a piece of evidence is turned in, the custodian should check the identification mark on
the piece of evidence to ensure that it is the same item and determine that the item is in the same condition as
when it was discovered. Any change in the physical appearance of the evidence should be noted and recorded.
THANK YOU!