Laws & Jurisprudence
CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUGS CASES
7:26 AM
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which
implements R.A. No. 9165, defines chain
of custody as “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. Thus,
crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other
related items immediately after they are seized from the accused.
“Marking” means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. (PEOPLE VS. JHON-JHON ALEJANDRO, G.R. NO. 176350, AUGUST 10, 2011, BRION, J.).
Some Cases on Chain of
Custody
Sonny Padua was charged with Illegal
Sale of Dangerous drugs and thereby contended that the Officer has failed to
comply with the process of chain of custody of the drugs and thereby absolving
him to such crime. The court ruled that Non-compliance with the stipulated
procedure of Chain of Custody, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officers. - People of the Philippines vs. Sonny Padua y Reyes, G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010
Non-compliance with Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. 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. - People of the Philippines vs. Reynald Dela Cruz y Libantocia,
G.R. No. 177324, March 30, 2011
The failure to
conduct an inventory and to photograph the confiscated items in the manner
prescribed under Section 21, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9165 cannot be
used as a ground for Arrisma’s exoneration from the charge against him/her. - People of the
Philippines vs. Nelly Ulama y Arrisma, G.R. No. 186530,
December 14, 2011
Marking of the seized drugs must be done immediately after they are
seized from the accused and failure to do so suffices to rebut the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duties and raises reasonable doubt
as to the authenticity of the corpus delict. Marking of the seized drugs 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. - People of the
Philippines vs. Reynaldo
Nacua, G.R. No. 200165, January 30, 2013
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
0 comments