LEGAL NOTE 0015:  WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS TO PROVE IN THE PROSECUTION FOR ILLEGAL SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUG? WHAT IS MEANT BY CHAIN OF CUSTODY?

 

WHAT ELEMENTS MUST BE PROVEN IN A PROSECUTION FOR ILLEGAL SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUG.

The following must be proven under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165:

(1)   the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration;

(2)   the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

All these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction.[1][13]

 

WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE FOR SEIZURE AND CUSTODY OF ILLEGAL DRUG?

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides such procedure:

(1)   The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] (Emphasis supplied.)

 

WHAT IS RATIONALE FOR STRICT OBSERVANCE OF THIS PROCEDURE:

The illegal drug’s unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.

 

IS NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE AUTHORITIES OF AFORESAID SECTION 21 FATAL.

People v. Pringas[2][16] teaches that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal.  Its non-compliance will not automatically 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.[3][17] 

As provided in Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

          (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.] 

          x x x x  (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

 

WHY IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE ABOVE?

Strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence.[4][18]

 

TO BE COVERED BY THE SAVING CLAUSE, WHAT MUST BE PROSECUTION DO?

Even so, for the saving clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution should explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved.[5][19]

It must be shown that the illegal drug presented in court is the very same specimen seized from the accused. This function is performed by the “chain of custody” requirement to erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs by establishing its movement from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist and finally to the court.[6][20] 

 

WHAT IS MEANT BY CHAIN OF CUSTODY?

Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines “chain of custody” as follows:

“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[.][7][21]

Every link must be accounted for.

 

SOURCE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JAY LORENA Y LABAG (G.R. NO. 184954, 10 JANUARY 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.) SUBJECTS: PROSECUTION OF ILLEGAL SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS; CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF PROHIBITED DRUGS. (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. LORENA)


[1][13] People v. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010, p. 7, citing People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 266.

[2][16] G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828.

[3][17] Id. at 842-843.

[4][18] People v. Pagaduan, supra note 13 at 10-11.

[5][19] People v. Almorfe, G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 2010, 617 SCRA 52, 60, citing People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 212.

[6][20] People v. Almorfe, id. at 60-61, citing Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619.

[7][21] See People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2000, 596 SCRA 257, 271.