DRUGS JURISPRUDENCE

1st link

2nd link
1. Non presentation of Investigator
a. People v. Remigio
b. P.v. Remigio, G.R. No 189277, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 336, 353
c. P. v. RamilDoriaDahil and Rommel Castro Y Carlos G.R. No 212196, January 12,
2015 - The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs
by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Usually, the police
officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer,
who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing.42 This
is a necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating
officer who shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary
documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the investigating officer
must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required
documents.

3rd link

4th link
1. Failure to Present Evidence Custodian –
2.

FAILURE TO PRESENT THE DRUGS / CORPUS DELICTI –

1. People vs. Remigio - G.R. No. 189277 - December 05, 2012 - In both cases of illegal sale
and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is important for the prosecution to show
the chain of custody over the dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus delicti.61

Jurisprudence consistently pronounces that the dangerous drug itself constitutes the
very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of
conviction.62 As such, the presentation in court of the corpus delicti – the body or
substance of the crime – establishes the fact that a crime has actually been
committed.63

In this case, no illegal drug was presented as evidence before the trial court. As pointed
out by appellant, what were presented were pictures of the supposedly confiscated
items. But, in the current course of drugs case decisions, a picture is not worth a
thousand words.64 The image without the thing even prevents the telling of a story. It is
indispensable for the prosecution to present the drug itself in court.

We have decided that in prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself
constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a
 judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. To emphasize the importance of
the corpus delicti in drug charges, we have held that it is essential that the prohibited
drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in
court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established with the same
unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.65

Thus, there are two indispensables. The illegal drug must be offered before the court as
exhibit and that which is exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the
suspect. The needfulness of both was stressed in People v. Lorena,66 where We, after
reiterating the elements of the crime of sale of illegal drug, proceeded to state that 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, which
in People v. Martinez,67 equates as simply in People v. Gutierrez,68 was referred to as
"the drug itself."

In this case, there is no corpus delicti.

The prosecution failed to present the drug itself in court; it relied only on the pictures of
the alleged drugs. Nowhere in the records is it shown that the prosecution made any
effort to present the very corpus delicti of the two drug offenses. This is evident in the
pertinent portions of the direct testimony of PO2 Ramos:

2. Asda
ONE MAN OPERATION –
1. People vs. Remigio - G.R. No. 189277 - December 05, 2012 - We could have stopped at
the point where the prosecution failed to present the substance allegedly recovered
from the appellant. The failure already renders fatally flawed the decision of conviction.
Indeed, an examination of the chain of custody of the substance, without the substance
itself, is nonsensical. We, however, see more than an academic need for a discussion of
the concept of chain of custody. We want to depict the carelessness, if not the brazen
unlawfulness, of the law enforcers in the implementation of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. What happened in this case is a one-man operation,
seemingly towards the objective of the law, but by means of outlawing those specifically
outlined in the statute, in the rules implementing the statute and in our decisions
interpreting law and rule. As testified to by the prosecution’s sole witness, PO2 Ramos,
he was the one who conceived the operation; who, although with his informant as the
lone actor, conducted the operation by himself being the poseur-buyer with a one
hundred peso bill he himself pre-marked and recorded in the police blotter only after
the arrest. PO2 Ramos was himself the apprehending officer who confiscated the
sachets of illegal drugs together with the wallet of the accused.

Stipulations cannot substitute for corpus Delicti - The failure to produce the corpus delicti in
court cannot be remedied by the stipulation regarding the forensic chemist. People vs. Remigio
- G.R. No. 189277 - December 05, 2012

EVERY person who touch the drugs should be presented - If the sealing of the seized substance has not
been made, the prosecution would have to present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and
storage personnel, the entire chain of custody, no matter how briefly one’s possession has been. Each of them has to
testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while in his care. PEOPLE
vs. FERNANDO HABANA. G.R. No. 188900-March 5, 2010
Evidence Custodian should be presented - Since the evidence custodian, SPO1 Amacanim, was not presented in
court, we cannot be sure and certain that the substance offered as evidence in court was the same substance seized
from the accused.

The purpose of the law in requiring the prosecution to present the testimony of the police officers who handled the
substance in court is to ascertain that the integrity and identity ofthe substance is preserved; that the police officers
and laboratory technicianwho handled the seized substance, undertook precautionary measures to preserve the
identity and integrity of the substance.

The prosecution failed to show how the seized shabuchanged hands. Given the unique character of shabu, and the
unavoidable multiple transmittal of the specimen to differenthands, it is imperative for the officer who seized the
substance from the accused to place his marking on its plastic container and seal the same, preferablywith adhesive
tape that cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container, which the arresting officer failed to
comply. The police officer’s failure to properly seal the seized shabu, coupled with the failure of the prosecution to
20

present the officer who had custody of the seized substance deprived the court of the means to ascertain the corpus
delictiin drugs cases. G.R. No. 202701 - September 10, 2014. PEOPLE vs. EDILBERTO BALIBAY y LABIS and
1âwphi1

MARICEL BALIBAY BIJA-AN1,