People vs Salim Ismael

GR No 208093, Feb 20 2017

Facts:

During a buy-bust operation, exchange of the shabu and the marked money took place between
SPO1 Santiago and the appellant. Upon seeing the exchange, SPO1 Rodriguez, who was positioned
few meters away, rushed in and arrested appellant. SPO1 Rodriguez found, tucked inside [appellant's
left front pocket the ₱100.00] marked money and two (2) more plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance wrapped in a golden cigarette paper.

The police officers then brought appellant to the Culianan Police Station [in Zamboanga City] with
SPO1 Santiago keeping personal custody of the items confiscated from [him]. At the [police] station,
the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance subject of the buy-bust operation, the two
(2) plastic sachets also containing white crystalline substance[, and the ₱100.00] marked money
recovered from appellant's left pocket, were respectively turned over by SPO1 Santiago and SPO1
Rodriguez to the Desk Officer, who likewise turned [these over] to the Duty Investigator. The latter
then placed his initial "RDT" on the items recovered from appellant.

Issue: Whether or not the police failed to comply with the strict requirements of Section 21 of RA
9165

Ruling:

It is evident that there was a break in the very first link of the chain when he failed to mark the
sachet'3 of shabu immediately upon seizing them from the appellant. According to SPO1 Rodriguez,
after finding sachets of shabu in appellant's possession, he turned the drugs over to the desk officer.
SPO1 Rodriguez did not even explain why he failed to mark or why he could not have marked the
seized items immediately upon confiscation. Allegedly, the desk officer, after receiving the seized
items from SPO1 Rodriguez, in turn handed them over to PO2 Tan. Notably, this desk officer was not
presented in court thereby creating another break in the chain of custody. Again, no explanation was
offered for the non-presentation of the desk officer or why he himself did not mark the seized items.
It was only upon receipt by PO2 Tan, allegedly from the desk officer, of the seized chugs that the
same were marked at the police station. This means that from the time the drugs were seized from
appellant until the time PO2 Tan marked the same, there was already a significant gap in the chain of
custody. Because of this gap, there is no certainty that the sachets of drugs presented as evidence in
the trial court were the same drugs found in appellant's possession.
People vs Zaragosa

GR No 223142, jan 17 2018

Facts:

During the conduct of a buy bust operation, NBI Agents found inside the bedroom and beside the
bed of Santos several used and unused foil strips either crumpled or rolled, the size of a cigarette
stick. They also seized several sachets including marijuana, which was found when Santos was
frisked. Santos, Assistant City Prosecutor Darwin Cañete, Kagawad Magno Flores, and media
representative Eugene Lalaan of lmbestigador witnessed the inventory of the seized items by Saul
and when he marked them. Santos, Loquinario-Flores, and the two minors were brought to the NBI
office. When they returned to the NBI office after the operation, they submitted the seized items to
the NBI forensic chemist. A joint affidavit of arrest was thereafter executed by the agent, Malaluan,
Bomediano, and Kanapi.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC failed to prove the integrity and identity of the alleged confiscated
drugs

Ruling:

No. The Court has explained in a catena of cases the four (4) links that should be established in the
chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal
drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to
the court. In this case, all links were established by the prosecution and that there was no significant
gap in the chain of custody of the seized items. Moreover, the assertion of Santos that the forensic
chemist did not testify to explain the measures undertaken to preserve the integrity and identity of
the substance examined until their presentation in court,64 has no merit. As earlier mentioned, both
the prosecution and the defense had agreed to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist
upon stipulation on certain facts
People vs Gayoso

GR No 206590, March 27, 2017

Facts:

During a buy-bust operation and search upon the house of the appellant, SP04 Bandoy found a tin
foil under the mattress. SP03 De Dios took it from SP04 Bandoy and gave it to SP03 Salamida who
found seven sachets of shabu inside, in addition to the four sachets of shabu found inside the right
pocket of the short pants of appellant. The search of the house also revealed several drug
paraphernalia. An inventory of seized items was prepared and the same was signed by
the Barangay Chairman, P02 Isip, SP04 Bandoy, and appellant. The sachets of shabu were brought to
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) then to the PNP Crime Laboratory for qualitative
examination. The results of the examination verified that the seized sachets contained shabu.

Issue: Whether or not the Prosecution established chain of custody over the seized drugs

Ruling:

No. The failure of the arresting officers to comply with the marking of evidence immediately after
confiscation constitutes the first gap in the chain of custody. x x x None of the arresting officers
presented as witnesses identified the shabu presented during trial as the same shabu seized from
appellant. Thus, the second link in the chain of custody is missing. x x x The request for laboratory
examination of the PDEA identifies the police officer who delivered the seized shabu as a certain
SPO1 Asis, but he was not presented to testify that the shabu delivered to the crime laboratory was
the same shabu confiscated from appellant. There is a third break in the chain of custody. x x x
Nothing also can be gained from the testimony of the forensic chemist PSI Cruto. His testimony is not
clear and positive since he failed to assert that the alleged packs of chemical substance presented for
laboratory examination and tested positive for shabu were the very same substance allegedly
recovered from appellant. His testimony was limited to the result of the examination he conducted
and not on the source of the substance. From the foregoing, it appears that no chain of custody was
established at all.
People vs Piad

GR No 213607, Jan 25 2016

Facts:

During a buy-bust operation, PO1 Arevalo handed to Piad the P150.00 marked money. In turn, Piad
handed to PO1 Arevalo a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After the
transaction was completed, PO1 Arevalo immediately grabbed Piad’s right arm and introduced himself
as a police officer. Piad, however, struggled to free himself. PO1 Arevalo was eventually forced to
enter the house amidst the struggle. The back-up team followed suit and entered the house. After
arresting him, PO1 Arevalo asked Piad to bring out the marked money. Piad complied. PO1 Arevalo
also asked him about the source of the drugs he sold. Piad pulled out a metal box from his pocket
and it revealed two (2) other plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO1 Arevalo
marked all the items confiscated from Piad at the place of the arrest. Meanwhile, the back-up team
saw Villarosa, Davis and Carbo inside the house, sitting on the floor. They were surrounded by three
(3) sachets of white crystalline substance (one was heat sealed, while the other two were unsealed),
aluminum foil, a tooter and disposable lighters. The items were confiscated and were marked by PO1
Bayot thereat.The team brought Piad, Villarosa, Carbo, and Davis to the police headquarters. There,
PO2 Pacurib, PO1 Bayot and PO1 Arevalo executed a joint affidavit on their arrest. P/Insp. Sabio
prepared the requests for laboratory examination and drug test, which were brought by SPO1 Bayot
to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory. PSI Ebuen examined the confiscated items which
tested positive for shabu.

Issue: Whether or not the police complied with the chain of custody rule

Ruling:

Yes. Evidently, the law requires "substantial" and not necessarily "perfect adherence" as long as it
can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved as the
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In this case, the
CA meticulously assessed how the prosecution complied with the chain of custody rule. When Piad
was arrested, PO1 Arevalo marked the confiscated drugs at the crime scene. Likewise, when
Villarosa, Carbo and Davis were arrested, PO1 Bayot immediately marked the seized items at the
crime scene. The items were brought to the Pasig City Police Station where PO1 Bayot was
designated as evidence custodian. P/Insp. Sabio then prepared the requests for laboratory
examination and drug test, which were brought by PO1 Bayot, together with the drugs, to the
Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory. PSI Ebuen, received the confiscated items for examination.
The said items tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Based on the foregoing, the
Court is satisfied that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule.