Lawyerly

GR No. 198804

2014-01-22

REYES, J.

Thus, in People v. Almorfe,[40] the Court stressed that: Respecting the team's non-compliance with the inventory, not to mention the photograph, requirement of R.A. No. 9165, the same does not necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs. There must, however, be justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom, and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/s.

GR No. 203028

2014-01-15

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA

REYES, J.

It has been held that "[w]hile a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange."[46] Moreover, as the investigator of the case, PO3 Sia claimed that he personally took the drug to the laboratory for testing, but there is no showing who the laboratory technician was who received the drug from him. The records also show that he submitted the sachet to the laboratory only on the next day, without explaining how he preserved his exclusive custody thereof overnight. All these leave us with no conclusion but that there is serious doubt that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item have not been fatally compromised.

GR No. 201845

2013-03-06

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ADRID Y FLORES

VELASCO JR., J.

As for the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty relied upon by the courts a quo, the same cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[45] (citations omitted)

GR No. 192261

2011-11-16

PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO

MENDOZA, J.

While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange.[42] Accordingly, each and every link in the custody must be accounted for, from the time the shabu was retrieved from Salcena during the buy-bust operation to its submission to the forensic chemist until its presentation before the RTC. In the case at bench, the prosecution failed to do so.

GR No. 186467

2011-07-13

PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA

MENDOZA, J.

The Court, at this point, takes note of the RTC Order dated July 23, 2003 dispensing with the testimony of the forensic chemical officer and bearing the matters stipulated upon by the parties. The Court views the stipulation as confined merely to the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and to the analytical results obtained. People v. Almorfe [27] teaches that the testimony of the forensic chemist which is stipulated upon does not cover the manner as to how the specimen was handled before and after it came to the possession of the forensic chemist. It bears stressing that although the parties stipulated on the results of the laboratory examination, no stipulation was made with respect to the ultimate source of the drug submitted for examination.

GR No. 181039

2011-01-31

PEOPLE v. SEVILLANO DELOS REYES Y LANTICAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Said gaps in the chain cannot be disregarded or overlooked by this Court. As held in the case of People v. Almorfe [21]: x x x Although Janet identified Exhibits "C-1," "C-2" and "C-3" as the drugs seized from appellants which she claimed to have marked immediately after the bust, she did not disclose the name of the investigator to whom she turned them over. And there is no showing if that same investigator was the one who turned the drugs over to the forensic chemist, or if the forensic chemist whose name appears in the physical science report was the one who received them from that investigator, or where the drugs were kept for safekeeping after the chemical test was conducted up to the time they were presented in court.

GR No. 184954

2011-01-10

PEOPLE v. JAY LORENA Y LABAG

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

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.[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.[20] 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[.][21]

GR No. 184954

2011-01-10

PEOPLE v. JAY LORENA Y LABAG

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In this case, there was no compliance with the inventory and photographing of the seized dangerous drug and marked money immediately after the buy-bust operation. We have held that such non-compliance does not necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs. There must, however, be justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom, and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/s.[22] While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. Hence, every link must be accounted for.[23]

GR No. 184761

2010-09-08

PEOPLE v. JULIUS GADIANA Y REPOLLO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated "that the Forensic Officer Jude Daniel Mendoza will testify, and affirm and confirm his findings and conclusion within the four corners of his forensic report" with the clarification that what was admitted was the "existence but not the source" [4]

GR No. 188905

2010-07-13

PEOPLE v. ROSE NANDI Y SALI

MENDOZA, J.

Moreover, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the subject substance was the very same object taken from the accused. To erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs, the prosecution should establish its movement from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.[10] In Mallillin v. People,[11] the Court had the occasion to explain the chain of custody rule and what constitutes sufficient compliance with this rule: 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 witnesses' 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. [Emphasis supplied]

	GR No. 198804 2014-01-22	CARLITO VALENCIA Y CANDELARIA v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
Thus, in People v. Almorfe,[40] the Court stressed that: Respecting the team's non-compliance with the inventory, not to mention the photograph, requirement of R.A. No. 9165, the same does not necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs. There must, however, be justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom, and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/s.
	GR No. 203028 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA REYES, J.
It has been held that "[w]hile a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange."[46] Moreover, as the investigator of the case, PO3 Sia claimed that he personally took the drug to the laboratory for testing, but there is no showing who the laboratory technician was who received the drug from him. The records also show that he submitted the sachet to the laboratory only on the next day, without explaining how he preserved his exclusive custody thereof overnight. All these leave us with no conclusion but that there is serious doubt that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item have not been fatally compromised.
	GR No. 201845 2013-03-06	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ADRID Y FLORES VELASCO JR., J.
As for the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty relied upon by the courts a quo, the same cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[45] (citations omitted)
	GR No. 192261 2011-11-16	PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO MENDOZA, J.
While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange.[42] Accordingly, each and every link in the custody must be accounted for, from the time the shabu was retrieved from Salcena during the buy-bust operation to its submission to the forensic chemist until its presentation before the RTC. In the case at bench, the prosecution failed to do so.
	GR No. 186467 2011-07-13	PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA MENDOZA, J.
The Court, at this point, takes note of the RTC Order dated July 23, 2003 dispensing with the testimony of the forensic chemical officer and bearing the matters stipulated upon by the parties. The Court views the stipulation as confined merely to the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and to the analytical results obtained. People v. Almorfe [27] teaches that the testimony of the forensic chemist which is stipulated upon does not cover the manner as to how the specimen was handled before and after it came to the possession of the forensic chemist. It bears stressing that although the parties stipulated on the results of the laboratory examination, no stipulation was made with respect to the ultimate source of the drug submitted for examination.
	GR No. 181039 2011-01-31	PEOPLE v. SEVILLANO DELOS REYES Y LANTICAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Said gaps in the chain cannot be disregarded or overlooked by this Court. As held in the case of People v. Almorfe [21]: x x x Although Janet identified Exhibits "C-1," "C-2" and "C-3" as the drugs seized from appellants which she claimed to have marked immediately after the bust, she did not disclose the name of the investigator to whom she turned them over. And there is no showing if that same investigator was the one who turned the drugs over to the forensic chemist, or if the forensic chemist whose name appears in the physical science report was the one who received them from that investigator, or where the drugs were kept for safekeeping after the chemical test was conducted up to the time they were presented in court.
	GR No. 184954 2011-01-10	PEOPLE v. JAY LORENA Y LABAG VILLARAMA, JR., J.
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.[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.[20] 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[.][21]
	GR No. 184954 2011-01-10	PEOPLE v. JAY LORENA Y LABAG VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In this case, there was no compliance with the inventory and photographing of the seized dangerous drug and marked money immediately after the buy-bust operation. We have held that such non-compliance does not necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs. There must, however, be justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom, and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/s.[22] While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. Hence, every link must be accounted for.[23]
	GR No. 184761 2010-09-08	PEOPLE v. JULIUS GADIANA Y REPOLLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated "that the Forensic Officer Jude Daniel Mendoza will testify, and affirm and confirm his findings and conclusion within the four corners of his forensic report" with the clarification that what was admitted was the "existence but not the source" [4]
	GR No. 188905 2010-07-13	PEOPLE v. ROSE NANDI Y SALI MENDOZA, J.
Moreover, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the subject substance was the very same object taken from the accused. To erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs, the prosecution should establish its movement from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.[10] In Mallillin v. People,[11] the Court had the occasion to explain the chain of custody rule and what constitutes sufficient compliance with this rule: 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 witnesses' 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. [Emphasis supplied]

PEOPLE v. RODNIE ALMORFE Y SEDENTE