PEOPLE v.

ROMY LIM
G.R. No. 231989. PERALTA, J.
OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
DOCTRINE: The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to
its admission into evidence. To establish a chain of custody sufficient to make evidence admissible, the proponent needs
only to prove a rational basis from which to conclude that the evidence is what the party claims it to be.
FACTS: Lim was charged with illegal possession of shabu. His stepson, Eldie Gorres (Gorres), was also indicted for illegal
sale of shabu. In their arraignment, Lim and Gorres pleaded not guilty. They were detained in the city jail.

IO1 Orellan and his teammates were at the Regional Office of the PDEA. Based on a report of a confidential informant (CI)
that a certain "Romy" has been engaged in the sale of prohibited drugs. They were directed to gather for a buy-bust
operation. Thereafter, Carin and the CI alighted from the vehicle near the corner leading to the house of "Romy," while IO1
Orellan and the other team members disembarked a few meters after and positioned themselves in the area to observe.
IO1 Carin and the CI turned at the corner and stopped in front of a house. Inside the house, Lim was sitting on the sofa
while watching the television. When the CI introduced IO1 Carin as a shabu buyer, Lim nodded and told Gorres to get one
inside the bedroom. Gorres stood up and did as instructed. After he came out, he handed a small medicine box to Lim, who
then took one piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic of shabu and gave it to IO1 Carin. In turn, IO1 Carin paid him with
the buy-bust money.

After examining the plastic sachet, IO1 Carin executed a missed call to IO1 Orellan, which was the pre-arranged signal.
Thereafter, they immediately rushed to Lim's house. IO1 Orellan declared that they were PDEA agents and informed Lim
and Gorres, who were visibly surprised, of their arrest for selling dangerous drug. They were ordered to put their hands on
their heads and to squat on the floor. IO1 Orellan recited the Miranda rights to them. Thereafter, IO1 Orellan conducted a
body search on both. When he frisked Lim, no deadly weapon was found, but something was bulging in his pocket. IO1
Orellan ordered him to pull it out. Inside the pocket were the buy-bust money and a transparent rectangular plastic box
about 3x4 inches in size. They could see that it contained a plastic sachet of a white substance. As for Gorres, no weapon
or illegal drug was seized. The buy-bust team brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional Office, with IO1 Orellan in
possession of the seized items.

According to the defense, Lim was sleeping in the bedroom, while Gorres was watching the television. When the latter
heard that somebody jumped over their gate, he stood up to verify. Before he could reach the door, however, it was already
forced opened by the repeated pulling and kicking of men in civilian clothing. They entered the house, pointed their firearms
at him, instructed him to keep still, boxed his chest, slapped his ears, and handcuffed him. They inquired on where the
shabu was, but he invoked his innocence. When they asked the whereabouts of "Romy," he answered that he was sleeping
inside the bedroom. So the men went there and kicked the door open. Lim was then surprised as a gun was pointed at his
head. He questioned them on what was it all about, but he was told to keep quiet. The men let him and Gorres sit on a
bench. Lim was apprised of his Miranda rights. Thereafter, the two were brought to the PDEA Regional Office and the crime
laboratory. During the inquest proceedings, Lim admitted, albeit without the assistance of a counsel, ownership of the two
sachets of shabu because he was afraid that the police would imprison him.
RTC: The RTC handed a guilty verdict on Lim for illegal possession and sale of shabu and acquitted Gorres for lack of
sufficient evidence linking him as a conspirator.
CA: The CA affirmed the RTC Decision. It agreed with the finding of the trial court that the prosecution adequately
established all the elements of illegal sale of a dangerous drug as the collective evidence presented during the trial
showed that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted. Likewise, all the elements of illegal possession of a dangerous
drug was proven.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the chain of custody was complied with

RULING: No. The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to
its admission into evidence. To establish a chain of custody sufficient to make evidence admissible, the proponent needs
only to prove a rational basis from which to conclude that the evidence is what the party claims it to be. In other words, in
a criminal case, the prosecution must offer sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably believe that an
item still is what the government claims it to be. Specifically in the prosecution of illegal drugs, the well-established federal
evidentiary rule in the United States is that when the evidence is not readily identifiable and is susceptible to alteration by
tampering or contamination, courts require a more stringent foundation entailing a chain of custody of the item with sufficient
completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated
or tampered with.
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.

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. Here,
IO1 Orellan took into custody the ₱500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of white substance, and a disposable
lighter. IO1 Carin also turned over to him the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in the house, IO1 Orellan
marked the two plastic sachets. IO1 Orellan testified that he immediately conducted the marking and physical inventory of
the two sachets of shabu. Evident, however, is the absence of an elected public official and representatives of the DOJ and
the media to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items.