People of the Philippines v.

Elma {Thelma] Bongabong y Fullacao

G.R. No. 248327, September 30,2020

PONENTE: Justice Fernanda Larnpas Peralta

TOPIC: Chain of Custody in Drug Cases
NATURE OF THE CASE: Appeal from the Decision of the CA

FACTS:

Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165

in an Information. On August 5, 2013, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to
the charge of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. In the Decision dated April 12,
2016, the RTC found accused appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. On appeal, the CA denied the appeal
and affirmed the RTC Decision in toto.

ISSUE:
Whether the chain of custody over the seized items was duly observed in
accordance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

RULING:
YES. Well-settled is the rule that to sustain a conviction for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements
must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and
(2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.

In the case herein, accused-appellant questions the lower courts' appreciation

of the integrity of the c01pus delicti and the apprehending officers' compliance
with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Accused appellant asserts the following:
(a) the items which were allegedly the subject of the sale were not marked
completely after confiscation at the place of arrest; and (b) the testimony of the
person who had custody and safekeeping of the seized items after laboratory
examination pending presentation in court was not presented.

In People v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court explained how crucial the marking of
evidence is:

The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the
dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the
dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the
poseur-buyer of his initials or signatw-e or other identifying signs,
should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately
upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied,
because succeedinr. handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items
will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart
 as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material
from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the
cl.ose of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching,
planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately
upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is
indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.

With this in mind, the Court notes that there can be no doubt as to the
integrity of the confiscated drugs herein, considering that their whereabouts
had been accounted for from the time of confiscation, marking, and
examination until their eventual presentation in court. As cogently found by
the CA, Agent Baclili clearly testified that he marked the seized drugs at the
place of confiscation with his initials DGB-A on the box containing 18 bricks of
marijuana, DGB-B on the box with 14 bricks of marijuana, DGB-C on the box
with 10 bricks of marijuana, and individually marked each brick with DGB-1 to
42 with the date and his signature. With the corresponding markings, the
dangerous drugs
evidence had already been set apart from other materials from the moment
they were confiscated until the time they were disposed of at the close of the
criminal proceedings; and possible switching, planting or contamination of
evidence was forestalled.

In the same manner, the last link as to the custody over the seized items after
the laboratory examination up to the presentation in court was established by
stipulation of the parties during pre-trial. The parties admitted that it was PCI
Canlas who personally brought the items subject matter of the case to the
RTC.31 Moreover, PCI Canlas narrated that the seized items were kept at their
office by her assistant, P03 delos Reyes, until the items were delivered to the
RTC. With the substantial amount of the confiscated bricks of marijuana
dutifully marked individually immediately after their confiscation at the place
of anest, the evidence being readily identifiable, their proper identification in
court by Agent Baclili, and the stipulation made by the parties that the seized
items subject of the case were examined by PCI Canlas, then the susceptibility
of the evidence to alteration, tampering, contamination, substitution, and
exchange is implausible.

All in all, the integrity of the confiscated drugs had been preserved; thus the
conviction of accused-appellant should be sustained.

The appeal was DISMISSED. The decision of CA was affirmed.