Chain of Custody

“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity
and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the
final disposition;
Thus, it has been held that, as a general rule, strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 is
mandatory. 8 The Court may allow noncompliance with the requirement only in exceptional cases,9
where the following requisites are present: ( 1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure
from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending team. 10 If these two elements are present, the seizures and
custody over the confiscated items shall not be rendered void and invalid..
For this purpose, the prosecution must satisfy its two-pronged requirement: first, credibly justify the
noncompliance, and second, show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were
properly preserved. 13 This interpretation on when the saving clause is triggered is not novel. In
Valencia v. People, 14 the Court held: Although the Court has ruled that non-compliance with the
directives of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case, the
prosecution must still prove that (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items wen.: properly preserved. Further, the non-
compliance with the procedures must be justified by the State's agents themselves. The arresting
officers are under obligation, should they be unable to comply with the procedures laid down under
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to explain why the procedure was not followed and prove that the
reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would merely be fancy
ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience. 15
(Citations omitted)
In the case of People v. Barte, 16 the Court pronounced that the State has the duty to credibly explain
the noncompliance of the provisions of Section 21: When there is failure to comply with the
requirements for proving the chain of custody in the confiscation of contraband in a drug buy-bust
operation, the State has the obligation to credibly explain such noncompliance; otherwise, the proof of
the corpus delicti is doubtful, and the accused should be acquitted for failure to establish his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. 17 In People v. Ismael, 18 the accused was acquitted because "the
prosecution failed to: ( 1) overcome the presumption of innocence which appellant enjoys; (2) prove the
corpus delicti of the crime; (3) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs; and ( 4) offer
any explanation why the provisions of Section 21, RA 9165 were not complied with."19 Likewise, in
People v. Reyes20 : Under the last paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, a
saving mechanism has been provided to ensure that not every case of noncompliance with the
procedures for the preservation of the chain of custody will irretrievably prejudice the Prosecution's
case.
against the accused. To warrant the application of this saving mechanism, however, the Prosecution
must recognize the lapse or lapses, and justify or explain them. Such justification or explanation would
be the basis for applying the saving mechanism. Yet, the Prosecution did not concede such lapses, and
did not even tender any token justification or explanation for them. The failure to justify or explain
underscored the doubt and suspicion about the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti. With the
chain of custody having been compromised, the accused deserves acquittal. x x x 21 (Emphasis supplied;
citations omitted) Conformably with these disquisitions, I thus express my full support over the
institution by the ponencia of the following mandatory policies before a case for violation ofR.A. 9165,
as amended by R.A. 10640, may be filed: 1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the
apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of
R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR. 2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the
apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps
they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.
3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the
investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the
case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause. 4.
If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to
either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of
probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.22
This was adopted in Mallillin v. People, 16 where this Court also discussed how, ideally, the
chain of custody of seized items should be established: As a method of authenticating evidence, the
chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is
offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and
from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the
chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no
change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession
of the same. 17
Thus, the links in the chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover
of the seized illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the
illegal drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and ( 4) the
turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 1

Chain of Custody

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chain of Custody

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chain of Custody

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or

You might also like