G.R. No. 209785, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARLON ABETONG Y ENDRADO, Accused-Appellant

G.R. No.
209785, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MARLON ABETONG Y ENDRADO, Accused-Appellant.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as
in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature.
And the risk of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit of this nature is
greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in
nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. As a
reasonable measure, in authenticating narcotic specimens, a standard more stringent
than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be
applied––a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with
sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either
been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.
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 it.
G.R. No. 199901, October 9, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-

Appellee, vs. GARYZALDY GUZON, Accused-Appellant.
In the instant case, Guzon was accused of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 which prohibits the sale of illegal drugs. The elements of the crime include: (a) the
identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and
(b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. 38 The Court explained in
People v. Bautista39 that in drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not
only of proving these elements of the offense under R.A. No. 9165, but also of proving
the corpus delicti , the body of the crime. The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus
delicti of the violation of the law.40
"A buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for
apprehending drug peddlers and distributors."41 As in all drugs cases, compliance with
the chain of custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such operation. Chain
of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs
or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. 42 The rule is
imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the
suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of
said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make
a finding of guilt.43
To eliminate doubt, and even abuse, in the handling of seized substances, some
safeguards for compliance by law enforcement officers are established by law and
jurisprudence. For one, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, upon which Guzon anchors his
appeal, reads in part:
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;
x x x x (Emphasis ours)
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, particularly Section
21 thereof, further provides the following guidelines in the custody and control of
confiscated drugs:
xxxx
(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 ;
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, versus JAY LORENA y LABAG,

Appellant., G.R. No. 184954, 2011 Jan 10, 3rd Division
Even so, for the saving clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution should
explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized had been preserved. It must be shown that the illegal drug
presented in court is the very same specimen seized from the accused. This function is
performed by the "chain of custody" requirement to erase all doubts as to the identity of
the seized drugs by establishing its movement from the accused, to the police, to the
forensic chemist and finally to the court. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines "chain of custody" as follows:
"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 use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition[.]

G.R. No. 209785, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARLON ABETONG Y ENDRADO, Accused-Appellant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 209785, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARLON ABETONG Y ENDRADO, Accused-Appellant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 209785, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARLON ABETONG Y ENDRADO, Accused-Appellant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

209785, June 04, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

G.R. No. 199901, October 9, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-

Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, versus JAY LORENA y LABAG,

You might also like