– Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008
Section 21-of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 clearly outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs. In a language too plain to require a different construction, it mandates that the officer acquiring initial custody of drugs under a search warrant must conduct the photographing and the physical inventory of the item at the place where the warrant has been served. Esternon deviated from this procedure. It was elicited from him that at the close of the search of petitioner’s house, he brought the seized items immediately to the police station for the alleged purpose of making a “true inventory” thereof, but there appears to be no reason why a true inventory could not be made in petitioner’s house when in fact the apprehending team was able to record and mark the seized items and there and then prepare a seizure receipt therefore. Lest it be forgotten, the raiding team has had enough opportunity to cause the issuance of the warrant which means that it has had as much time to excuse non-compliance therewith, the same cannot benefit the prosecution as it failed to offer any acceptable justification for Esternon’s course of action.
Likewise, Esternon’s failure to deliver the seized items to the court demonstrates a departure from the directive in the search warrant that the items seized be immediately delivered to the trial court with a true and verified inventory of the same,-as required by Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court. People v. Go characterized this requirement as mandatory in order to preclude the substitution of or tampering with said items by interested parties. Thus, as a reasonable safeguard, People vs. Del Castillo declared that the approval by the court which issued the search warrant is necessary before police officers can retain the property seized and without it, they would have no authority to retain possession thereof and more so to deliver the same to another agency. Mere tolerance by the trial court of a contrary practice does not make the practice right because it is violative of the mandatory requirements of the law and it thereby defeats the very purpose for the enactment.
– People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007
The records do not show that police officers complied with the proper procedure in the custody of seized drugs and/or paraphernalia should, immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to comply with the requirement raises doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from appellant. It negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers.
CONVICTION:
– People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010
Sec. 21 of RA 9165 need not be followed as an exact science. Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seize/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is essential 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.” In the instant case, there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the drugs seized from appellant was preserved.
– People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 185381, December 16, 2009
Appellant argues that the police officers failed to photograph or mark the shabu immediately after the alleged buy-bust operation in his presence, or his counsel, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, or any elected public official. The Court, however, finds that there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the drugs seized was preserved. PO3 Arago seized and confiscated the dangerous drugs, as well as the marked money, appellant was immediately arrested; and in that spot where he was arrested, PO3 Arago marked the sachets of shabu with the initials of appellant. PO2 Aguinaldo also marked the two (2) sachets he found in appellant’s person with appellant’s initials. Appellant was then brought to the police station for investigation. Immediately thereafter, the plastic sachets were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory with a request for examination to determine the presence of any prohibited drug. As per Physical Science Report No. D-747-03, the specimens submitted contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
– People v. Ventura, G.R.No. 184957, October 27, 2009
The purpose of the procedure outlined in the implementing rules (Sec. 21 RA 91665) is centered on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. All evidence, including the markings on the plastic sachet containing the shabu, prove that the substace tested by the forensic chemist, whose laboratory tests were well-documented, was the same as that taken from accused-appellant. Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.
– People v. Lazaro, G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009
Appellant raised the buy-bust team’s alleged non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for the first time on appeal. In People v. Sta. Maria, the Court held that the law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Thorough review of the records, however, reveals that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case.
– People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 186380, October 12, 2009
Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody. People v. Sanchez explains that RA 9165 does not specify a time frame for “immediate marking,” or where said marking should be done. To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is required is that the marking be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation. “Immediate confiscation” has no exact definition. Thus, in People v. Gum-Oyen, testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.
– People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, June 22, 2009
The chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs was shown not to have been broken. After the seizure of the drugs from appellant’s possession, PO1 Climacosa and PO1 Antipasado marked the two (2) plastic sachets. The plastic sachet that was sold to PO1 Climacosa was marked MC, while the plastic sachet that was recovered by PO1 Antipasado was marked MC-1. These plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance were immediately forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory in EPD for examination to determine the presence of dangerous drugs. After a qualitative examination conducted on the specimens, PSI Cejes concluded that the white crystalline substance was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug. There can be no doubt that the drugs seized from appellant were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. Plainly, the prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized shabu from the time they were first discovered until they were brought for examination.
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that non-compliance with Section 21 will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. Aside from the presumption that the police operatives regularly performed their duties, they gave consistent and straightforward narrations of what transpired on May 28, 2004 that they apprehended the appellant in a buy-bust operation, and that upon being frisked, appellant was also found to be in possession of another sachet containing a white crystalline substance later on found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, more popularly known as shabu.
– People v. Gum-Oyen, G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009
The prosecution’s evidence sufficiently established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs beginning from the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to the forensic chemist whose laboratory tests were well-documented, up to the time there were offered in 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. The arresting officers also strictly complied with the guidelines prescribed by law regarding the custody and control of the seized drugs._There was testimony regarding the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of appellant. Likewise there was mention that an elected official was present during the inventory. In addition, it appears on record that the team photographed the contraband in accordance with law._Absent any indication that the police officers were ill-motivated in testifying against appellant, full credence should be given to their testimonies. In sum, contrary to appellant’s lone argument, the prosecution established the corpus delicti with moral certainty. Finally, it bears underscoring that appellant himself admitted that he was carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest and even though he knew it was against the law to so possess it in any amount.
– People v. Llamado, G.R. No. 185278, March 13, 2009
The failure on the part of the police officers to take photographs and make an inventory of the drugs seized from the appellant was not fatal because the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs. PO2 Brubio was able to put the necessary markings on the sachet of shabu bought from appellant, for identification purposes, immediately after the consummation of the drug sale. He personally delivered the same specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis on the same day the entrapment was conducted. Lastly, PO2 Brubio was able to identify the said markings in court.
– People v. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009
The seized sachet of shabu was immediately marked for proper identification and forwarded to the Crime Laboratory for examination. The Chemistry Report stated that the specimen submitted by the apprehending officers indeed bore the marking “Exh A MAG 171200-01-14” and that the same gave positive result to the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Forensic Chemical Officer Tria confirmed that she examined the specimen submitted by the PDEA and that she was the one who prepared the Chemistry Report No. D-54-04. It is thus evident that the identity of the corpus delicti has been properly preserved and established by the prosecution.
The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Appellant in this case has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharge their duties._Appellant failed to discharge such burden.
This Court has held that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 will 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 v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008
Non-compliance with Section 21 will 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. In the case at bar, appellant never questioned the custody and disposition of the drug that was taken from him. In fact, he stipulated that the drug subject matter of this case was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3, Malolos, Bulacan for laboratory examination which examination gave positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Thus, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug seized from appellant not to have been compromised. Similarly, non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. Nothing in the law, however, will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight – evidentiary merit or probative value – to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.
