Chain of custody of evidence in drug cases; liberal rule - G.R. No.

186227
G.R. No. 186227

Excerpts:

"Another contention raised by the appellant is the failure of the

prosecution to show the chain of custody of the recovered dangerous
drug. According to him, while it was Inspector Ferdinand B. Dacillo who
signed the request for laboratory examination, only police officers Pajo
and Simon were present in the buy-bust operation.
Section 21 of RA 9165 reads:
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.
Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is
not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.[25] Its non-
compliance will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[26] What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused.[27] In this particular case, it is
undisputed that police officers Pajo and Simon were members of the buy-
bust operation team. The fact that it was Inspector Ferdinand B. Dacillo
who signed the letter-request for laboratory examination does not in any
way affect the integrity of the items confiscated. All the requirements for
the proper chain of custody had been observed. As testified to by PO2
Pajo regarding the procedure undertaken after the consummation of the
buy-bust operation:
Prosecutor
Q: What did you do next after that?
A: After examining the sachet of shabu that it was really the plastic
containing white [crystalline] in substance, we immediately
approached the suspect.
xxxx
Q: When you rushed up to the suspect, what did you do?
A: We informed the suspect that we are the police officers and he has
this [constitutional] rights and immediately handcuffed him.
Q: Where were the marked moneys?
A: The marked moneys were thrown on the ground. After we
handcuffed the suspect, we did not immediately searched in. We
called the attention of the barangay officials to witness the search of
the suspect.
xxxx
Q: Now, before you searched the suspect you requested the presence
of the barangay officials. Now, when these barangay officials were
present, what did you do on the suspect?
A: We immediately searched the suspect.
Q: What was the result of the searched for him? (sic)
A: We confiscated one big sachet of suspected shabu and the retrieval
of 2 pieces of P100.00 peso bills as marked moneys.
Q: You said the suspect threw the marked moneys when you searched
him, where were the marked moneys?
A: On the ground.
Q: Who picked these marked moneys?
A: I was the one who picked the marked moneys.
Q: And then after you had picked the marked moneys and after you
had the 2 pieces of sachets of shabu; one during the buy-bust and the
other one during the search, what did you do [with] these 2 pieces of
sachets of shabu and the marked moneys?
A: I recorded those items recovered, sir, during the search to the
Certificate of Inventory.[28]
As ruled by this Court, what is crucial in the chain of custody is the
marking of the confiscated item which, in the present case, was complied
with, thus:
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking[29] of the seized
drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the
accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial
link, thus, it is vital that the seized contraband 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 criminal proceedings, obviating switching,
"planting," or contamination of evidence.[30]"