UPDATES in RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640

CHAIN OF CUSTODY (Section 21)

A. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 has been amended by Republic
Act No. 10640 (Signed By President Aquino into law on July 15, 2014)
AFTER SEIZURE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AND/OR
PARAPHERNALIA
1. Apprehending team to conduct PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF
SEIZED ITEMS AND PHOTOGRAPH THEM IN THE
PRESENCE OF SUSPECT FROM WHOM THEY WERE
SEIZED or his representative or legal counsel.
a. WITNESSES
- ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL (MANDATORY)
- DOJ Representative OR Media
Before RA 10640, the requirement was a public official, DOJ representative
AND Media
Witnesses will be required to sign inventory and be given copies thereof
2. PLACE OF INVENTORY
a. SEARCH WARRANT
- Place of Service of Warrant
b. Warrantless Seizures
- Place of Seizure OR
- Nearest Police Station OR (Whichever is practicable)
- Nearest Office of Apprehending Officer/Team (Whichever is
practicable)
That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.
- If you are unable to strictly follow the procedure, be ready with your
justification. There must be an earnest effort on your part to comply with the
procedure but you were not able to comply for reasons beyond your control.

A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which

shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately
upon the receipt of the subject item/s
B. People v. Sander Dacuma y Lunsod (G.R. No. 205889, February 4,
2015)
Links that the prosecution must establish to preserve the identity and
integrity of the seized items:
1. The seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer;
2. The turn over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer;
3. The turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to
the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
4. The turn over and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
by the forensic chemist to the court.
These requirements are necessary in order to ensure that the confiscated
drug are the same ones presented in court in order to dispel unnecessary doubts
as to the identity of the evidence. The prosecution must be able to account for
each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drugs, from the moment it
was seized from the accused up to the time it was presented in court.
IMMEDIATE MARKING IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES IS VITAL
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus, it is
vital that the seized contrabands are immediately marked because succeeding
handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking
of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of
all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the
accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE ALLOWED
The Court sanctioned substantial compliance with the procedure to
establish a chain of custody, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
team/officers. There is a liberality on minor deviations as long as there is no
gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive
law. However, when serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the
seized items presented in evidence, liberality ceases and presumption of
innocence takes precedence over substantial compliance.

C. People v. Randy Rollo y Lagasca (G.R. No. 211199, March 25, 2015)
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE ALLOWED
Testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police
station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance
with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted
the required physical inventory in the place where the subject shabu was seized
does not automatically render accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized from
him inadmissible. PROVIDED: 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.
Pertinently, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items which must be proven to establish the corpus delicti.
MINOR INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONIES NOT FATAL
Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to
minor details and collateral matters, do not affect either the substance of their
declaration, their veracity, or the weight of the testimony. Such minor
inconsistencies even enhance their veracity as the variances erase any suspicion
of a rehearsed testimony.
D. People v. Charlie Sorin y Tagaylo (G.R. No. 212635, March 25, 2015)
ACQUITTED DUE TO FATAL LAPSES
-

Police Officer A seized the shabu from accused and turned them
over to Police Officer B (Investigator) WITHOUT MARKING
IT.
Police Officer B did not mark the individual plastic sachets. He
placed the sachets in a transparent plastic cellophane which he
marked.

E. People v. Amy Dasigan (G.R. No. 206229, February 4, 2015)

BUY BUST. ACQUITTED IN SECTION 5, BUT FOUND GUILTY FOR

SECTION 11. ACCUSED WAS ARRESTED BEFORE SHE RECEIVED
THE MARKED MONEY FROM POSEUR BUYER.
Where the marked money was also shown to accused-appellant but it
was not actually given to her as she was immediately arrested when the shabu
was handed over to the poseur-buyer, the Court held that it is material in illegal
sale of dangerous drugs that the sale actually took place, and what
consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the
poseur-buyer and, in turn, the sellers receipt of the marked money. While the
parties may have agreed on the selling price of the shabu and delivery of
payment was intended, these do not prove the consummated sale. Receipt of
the marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs is required.
Elements of Section 5:
1. Identities of the buyer and the seller, object and consideration;
2. The delivery of the thing sold and payment for it;
Elements of Section 11:
1. The accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a
prohibited drug;
2. Such possession is not authorized by law;
3. The accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
F. People v. Dante Dela Pena, et al., (G.R. No. 207635, February 18,
2015)
SMALL SCALE DRUG PUSHING CAZN BE COMMITTED AT ANY TIME
AND ANY PLACE
Peddlers of illicit drugs have been known with ever increasing
casualness and recklessness to offer and sell their wares for the right price to
anybody, be they strangers or not. Moreover, drug pushing when done on a
small-scale, like the instant case, belongs to those types of crimes that may be
committed any time and at any place.
SURVEILLANCE, PRE-OPERATION REPORT AND BUY-BUST MONEY
ARE NOT VITAL.
A surveillance, pre-operation report, and buy-bust money are not
elements of, and are not vital to the prosecution for illegal A prior surveillance
is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation, the

conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. However the police carry
out its entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not
been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof.
G. People v. Rowena Tapugay y Ventura (G.R. No. 200336,
February 11, 2015)
The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there
is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered
with.
G. People v. Eric Rosauro y Bongcawil (G.R. No. 209588, February 18,
2015)
PRESENTATION
EXCEPTION.

OF

INFORMANT

IS

NOT

INDISPENSABLE;

Similarly, the presentation of an informant as witness is not regarded as

indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a
rule, the informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in view of the
need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through
his efforts. Thereby, the confidentiality of the informants identity is protected
in deference to his invaluable services to law enforcement. Only when the
testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the
conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his security be disregarded.
H. People v. Dennis Sumili (G.R. No. 212160, February 4, 2015)
AQUITTED. UNJUSTIFIED DELAY IN TURNOVER OF DRUGS TO
FORENSIC CHEMIST (2 DAY DELAY) COMPROMISED INTEGRITY
OF EVIDENCE.
Investigator said Crime Laboratory was closed. This was found to be false.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION.