"Witnessing a crime is an unusual experience that elicits different reactions from

witnesses for which no clear-cut standard of behavior can be drawn; different people
react differently to a given situation, and there is no standard form of human
behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful
experience." GR No. 229823 People vs Acabo February 27 2019

For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration and the delivery
of the thing sold as well its payment should be established. For illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, it should be established that the accused was in possession of an
item or object identified to be a prohibited drug, which possession was not
authorized by law and that the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale were present, the fact
that the dangerous drug illegally possessed and sold was the same drug offered in
court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as
that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. Hence identity of the dangerous drug must be
established with moral certainty
People vs. Sevilla G.R. No. 227187. March 4, 2019

There are four links that must be established in the chain of custody, to wit:
1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug confiscated from the
accused by the apprehending officer;
2) the turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer;
3) the turnover by the investigating officer of said item to the forensic chemist for
examination; and,
4) the turnover and submission thereof from the forensic chemist to the court.
People v. Gajo, G.R. No. 217026, January 22, 2018.

In People v. Hementiza, the Court stressed that every person who touched the item
must describe his or her receipt thereof, what transpired while the same was in one's
possession, and its condition when delivered to the next link.
G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017, 821 SCRA 470, 482.

Every person who takes possession of seized drugs must show how it was handled
and preserved while in his or her custody to prevent any switching or replacement.
Notably, Article 12 of the RPC states that a person is exempt from criminal liability
if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury. This stems from the recognition that
such person does not act with freedom. However, the Court has held on numerous
occasions that for such exempting circumstances to apply, "the duress, force, fear,
or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to
induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be
done. A threat of future injury is not enough. In the same vein, the person invoking
uncontrollable fear must prove that the compulsion was of such nature that it reduced
him to a mere instrument acting not only without a will, but even against his will. It
is also necessary that the compulsion is of such character as to leave no opportunity
for escape or self-defense in equal combat.
(People of the Philippines Vs. Datu Karim Masdal y Thailand @ “Alibara Masdal
& Warrior” G.R. No. 236594 March 6, 2019)