CHAIN OF

CUSTODY RULE IN
DRUG CASES (RA
9165)

SEC. 21 OF RA 9165 AS
AMENDED BY RA 10640:
SEC.

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:

The apprehending team having initial custody and

control of the dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors
and
essential
chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia
and/or
laboratory
equipment shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items 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, with an
elected public official and a representative of the
National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures and custody over said
items).

 A certification of the forensic laboratory examination

results, which shall be done by the forensic
laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately
upon
the
receipt
of
the
subject
item/s: Provided, That
when
the
volume
of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
and controlled precursors and essential chemicals
does not allow the completion of testing within the
time frame, a partial laboratory examination report
shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined
by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a
final certification shall be issued immediately upon
completion of the said examination and certification.

EFFECTS OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH

SEC. 21 OF RA 9165

 In the early case of People v. Pringas, the

Supreme Court had already laid down its
ruling on the issue as to the effect of the
arresting officers or buy-bust operating
units failure to comply with the
requirements set forth in Sec. 21 of RA
9165
regarding
the
custody
and
disposition of illegal drugs in their antiillegal drug operations, when it said that:

Non-compliance
by
the
apprehending/buy-bust
team
with
Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is
justifiable ground therefor, and as long
as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the confiscated/seized items,
are
properly
preserved
by
the
apprehending officer/team.
Its noncompliance will not render an accuseds
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

.Though the justifiable ground for noncompliance with Section 21 was not
expressly stated by the arresting/buy-bust
team, this does not necessarily mean that
appellants arrest was illegal or the items
seized/confiscated inadmissible.

In People v. Alberto, the Supreme Court

again said that:

Moreover,
non-compliance
by
the
apprehending/buy-bust team with Section
21 of the Dangerous Drugs Law is not fatal
as long as there is justifiable ground
therefor and the integrity and evidentiary
value of the confiscated/seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team.

 In the recent case of People v. Roa, the

Supreme Court once again stressed that:

This Court has consistently ruled that noncompliance with the requirements of
Sec. 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 will
not necessarily render the items
seized or confiscated in a buy-bust
operation inadmissible.

STRICT COMPLIANCE
WITH SEC. 21 OF RA
9165 MAY BE EXCUSED
UNDER JUSTIFIABLE
GROUNDS

 People v. Berdadero citing the case of People v.

Rivera:
If the justifiable reason could no longer be
determined due to the defenses failure to raise it
in issue during trial, it is of vital importance to
establish that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items have been preserved since
these would be determinative of whether the
accused is guilty or not.

 As stressed by the Supreme Court in the case of

People v. Del Monte:
What is of vital importance is the preservation of
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. The existence of the dangerous drug is a
condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself
constitutes the very corpus delicti of the crime and
the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of
conviction. Thus, it is essential that the identity of
the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.
The chain of custody requirement performs the
function of ensuring that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved,

THE ISSUE ON NON-COMPLIANCE

WITH SEC. 21 OF RA 9165 IS
PURELY
EVIDENTIARY
IN
CHARACTER THAT COULD ONLY
BE PROPERLY AND THOROUGHLY
PASSED UPON IN A FULL BLOWN
TRIAL AND NOT THRU A MERE
MOTION WITHOUT THE PARTIES
BEING EVEN CALLED FOR A
CLARIFICATORY HEARING .

 In the case of People v. Berdadero, the Supreme

Court stressed that:
The elements necessary to establish a case
for illegal sale of shabu are:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. What is material in a prosecution for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti
or the illicit drug in evidence.

 In the case of People v. Hajili, the

Supreme Court said:

Prosecutions
involving
illegal
drugs
depend largely on the credibility of the
police officers who conducted the buy bust
operation.

 Supreme Court in People v. Roa said:

In such cases, the testimonies of the
police officers who conducted the buy-bust are
generally accorded full faith and credit, in view
of the presumption of regularity in the
performance of public duties. Hence, when
lined against an unsubstantiated denial or
claim of frame-up, the testimony of the
officers who caught the accused red-handed is
given more weight and usually prevails.
In order to overcome this presumption of
regularity, jurisprudence teaches us that there
must be clear and convincing evidence that
the police officers did not properly perform

IN THE PROSECUTION FOR

ILLEGAL SALE OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS, WHAT
IS MATERIAL IS PROOF
THAT THE TRANSACTION OR
SALE ACTUALLY TOOK
PLACE AND NOT WHETHER
THE ARRESTING OFFICERS
COMPLIED WITH SEC. 21 OF
RA 9165 OR NOT.

 As held in the case of People v. Dilao:

What is material in a prosecution for

illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug
in evidence.

Simply put, the elements necessary to

establish a case for illegal sale of shabu
are:
(1)the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment
therefor.

Once these elements are present, then

the accused is deemed to have committed
the said offense.

END OF PRESENTATION