ALMORFE 2010 LAPSES MUST BE EXPLAINED

GRNO 181831
“For the saving clause to apply, it is important that the
Mar 29, 2010 prosecution should explain the reasons behind the
procedural lapses and that the integrity and value of the
seized evidence had been preserved:”
x x x [N]on-compliance with the strict directive of
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the
prosecutions case; police procedures in the handling of
confiscated evidence may still have lapses, as in the present
case. These lapses, however, must be recognized and
explained in terms of their justifiable grounds and the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must
be shown to have been preserved.” [Citing People v. Sanchez,
G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 211-212.]

“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. [citing Malillin v. People,
G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619.] Hence,
every link must be accounted for.”

DEGUZMAN 2010 NON COMPLIANCE MUST BE PROVEN AS A FACT

GRNO 186498
“The failure to follow the procedure mandated under R.A.
Mar 26, 2010 No. 9165 and its IRR must be adequately explained. The
justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a
fact. The court cannot presume what these grounds are or
that they even exist.”
“Accordingly, the failure to establish, through convincing
proof, that the integrity of the seized items has been
adequately preserved through an unbroken chain of custody
is enough to engender reasonable doubt on the guilt of an
accused. Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an
investigation of the whole proof and an inability after such
investigation to let the mind rest upon the certainty of guilt.
Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to
convict a person charged with a crime, but moral certainty is
required as to every proposition of proof requisite to
constitute the offense.38 A conviction cannot be sustained if
 there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug.”

People v. GOCO PROSECUTION MUST IDENTIFY THE PERSONS WHO

2016 HANDLED THE SEIZED ITEMS FROM SEIZURE UNTIL THEIR
PRESENTATION IN COURT AS EVIDENCE
219584, October
17, 2016 “Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals from the moment of seizure, to receipt of the
same by the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping, and finally
to the presentation of the drugs or chemicals in court for
destruction.29 The chain of custody requirement is strictly
applied when the evidence sought to be presented is not
distinctive and not readily identifiable, or when its condition
at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness
hasfailed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard
applies to evidence susceptible to alteration, tampering,
contamination, and substitution or exchange. In other words,
the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration, or
tampering dictates the level of strictness in the application of
the chain of custody rule.30 One of the physical
characteristics of shabu is that it is fungible in nature, and
similar in appearance to substances used by people in their
daily activities. As it is not readily distinguishable from other
substances, and from other samples of shabu, the chain of
custody requirement must be strictly complied with in order
to render it improbable that the seized items are exchanged
with another, or contaminated, or tampered with. [citing
People v. Abetong, G.R. No. 209785, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA
304, 314.]

“In order to fulfill the chain of custody requirement, the

prosecution must identify the persons who handled the
seized items from seizure ug until their presentation in court
as evidence. To do so, the prosecution must present
testimonies about every link in the chain, in such a way that
every person who touched the illegal drugs would describe
how and from whom they were received, where they were
and what happened to them while in his or her possession,
the condition in which he or she received them, and their
condition upon delivery. The witnesses must describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there was no change in
the condition of the illegal drugs and no opportunity for
someone not in the chain to have possessed the said items.
 Also, crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking
of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after
they are seized from the accused. [citing People v. Flores ,
G.R. No. 201365, August 3, 2015]
e

PEOPLE V. SUMILI UNJUSTIFIED DELAYS MARK A BREAK IN THE CHAIN OF

2015 CUSTODY
GRNO. 212160,
February 04, 2015 “To justify the delay in the turn-over of the corpus delicti,
SPO2 Englatiera and NUP Ong insist that the PNP Crime
Laboratory was already closed on June 7, 2006, and since it
was a Friday, the delivery of the seized sachet was only done
on June 9, 2006. However, contrary to their claims, June 7,
2006 is not a Friday, but a Wednesday.34 Thus, if the PNP
Crime Laboratory was indeed closed on June 7, 2006, the
delivery of the seized sachet could have easily been done on
the next day, or on June 8, 2006, instead of doing it two (2)
days after the buy-bust operation. This glaring fact, coupled
with the absence in the records as to who among the
apprehending officers had actual custody of the seized
sachet from the time it was prepared for turn-over until its
delivery to the PNP Crime Laboratory, presents a substantial
and unexplained gap in the chain of custody of the alleged
shabu seized from Sumili. Undoubtedly, the integrity and
evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been
compromised.

It must be emphasized that in criminal prosecutions involving

illegal drugs, the presentation of the drugs which constitute
the corpus delicti of the crime calls for the necessity of
proving with moral certainty that they are the same seized
items. Failing in which, the acquittal of the accused on the
ground of reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right, as in
this case.

In sum, since the identity of the prohibited drugs had not

been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt, Sumili's
conviction must be immediately set aside.” [citing people v.
viterbo G.R. No. 203434, July 23, 2014 and Mallillin v. People,
576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008)”

VITERBO 2014 ANY DIVERGENCE FROM THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE

G.R. No. 203434 MUST BE JUSTIFIED AND SHOULD NOT AFFECT THE
July 23, 2014 INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE CONFISCATED
ITEMS

“While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural

requirements will not automatically render the seizure and
custody of the items void and invalid, this is true only when
(a) there is a justifiable ground for such noncompliance,
and(b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved. Hence, any divergence from the
prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect
the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.”
[citing People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, December 13,
2010, 637 SCRA 791, 813]

From the foregoing testimony, it is clear that the confiscated

items changed hands before they were delivered to the
crime laboratory, i.e., from SPO4 Cardona to "Captain
Vargas" who, unfortunately, did not testify in this case in
order to shed light onwhat happened to the seized items
when they were turned over to his possession, or at the very
least, to clarify if he was the person who successfully
delivered the plastic sachets together with the
laboratoryrequest to the crime laboratory. His testimony in
this regard is significant, considering that the laboratory
request,44 on its lower left portion, reflects that it was
delivered by a certain "PO2 Zamora" who, the Court notes,
was likewise not presented in court to explain his role in the
chain of custody of the seized items. What was established,
instead, was that the seized items and the laboratory request
were received by the clerk of the crime laboratory, who
turned them over to P/Insp. Clemen, the forensic chemist
who performed the qualitative examination on the
substances.
Clearly, while the custodial link began and ended with SPO4
Cardona, there were substantial gaps in the chain of custody
of the seized items, particularly the events that transpired
from the time the items left the hands of SPO4 Cardona on
the night of March 4, 2003 and turned over to the
possession of "Captain Vargas," as well as the identity of the
PDEA agent who brought them together with the laboratory
request to Garcia, the receiving clerk of the crime laboratory,
in the morning of the following day. While the laboratory
request was prepared and signed by PS/Insp. Vargas, whom
the Court reasonably presumes to be the same "Captain
 Vargas" referred to in SPO4 Cardona’s testimony, there is
dearth of evidence showing that he was the same person
who brought the items to Garcia, taking into consideration
the fact that the laboratory request accompanying the items
was signed/delivered by "PO2 Zamora." These are crucial
missing links in this case which should have been clearly
accounted for in order to establish the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items.
The prosecution’s case is further weakened by the fact that
the seized items were delivered not on the same day of the
buy-bust operation, but only the following day. To the Court’s
mind, the considerable amount of time that had transpired
from the conduct of the buy-bust operation until the same
were brought for laboratory examination, especially when
viewed together with the above-mentioned considerations,
figures into a gaping hiatus in the chain of custody of the said
items, which is extremely fatal to the cause of the
prosecution.

MENDOZA 2014 INSULATING PRESENCE OF WITNESSES

GRNO. 192432
The consequences of the failure of the arresting lawmen to
192432 June 23, comply with the requirements of Section 21(1), supra, were
2014 dire as far as the Prosecution was concerned. Without the
insulating presence of the representative from the media or
the Department of Justice, or any elected public official
during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, the
evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the
evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under
the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972)
again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of
shabu that were evidence herein of thecorpus delicti, and
thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the
incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence
of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain
of custody.
CERALDE 2017 INSULATING PRESENCE OF WITNESSES
GRNO. 228894
Aug 07, 2017 Pertinently, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the
chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure that police
officers must follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to
preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. Under the said
section, the apprehending team shall, among others,
 immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a
physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the
presence of the accused or the person from whom the
items were seized, or his representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of
Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required
to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the
same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP
Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from
confiscation for examination. In the case of People v.
Mendoza the Court stressed that "[w]ithout the insulating
presence of the representative from the media or the
Department of Justice, or any elected public official during
the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of
switching, 'planting' or contamination of the evidence that
had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA
No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their
ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the
seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were
evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely
affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the
accused. Indeed, the x x x presence of such witnesses would
have preserved an unbroken chain of custody."
People v. SAVING CLAUSE MUST BE PROVEN AND EXPLAINED
Manansala 21 PROSEC SHOW AN UNBROKEN CHAIN
February 2018 G.R.
No. 229092 NEITHER CAN THE COURT EXCUSE THE ALLEGED ABSENCE
OF A CAMERA AS A JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHY RULE, SINCE THE
CAUSE OF SUCH ABSENCE WAS NEVER EXPLAINED. NOR
DOES THE PLAIN ALLEGATION THAT THE "COMMOTION
HAD ALREADY HAPPENED" - WITHOUT EXPLAINING ITS
COMPELLING NATURE - DISPENSE WITH THE NECESSITY FOR
THE SEIZED ITEMS TO BE PROPERLY INVENTORIED.

The mere marking of the seized drugs, unsupported by a

physical inventory and taking of photographs, and in the
absence of the necessary personalities under the law, fails to
approximate compliance with the mandatory procedure
under Section 21 of RA 9165.[39] Needless to state, the
barangay blotter, which is merely a recording of the incident,
is not equivalent to or a substitute for a physical inventory
that accounts and lists down in detail the items confiscated
from the accused. Besides, "[e]ntries in official records, as in
 the case of a police blotter, are only prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated" and are "[n]ot necessarily entitled
to full credit for it could be incomplete and inaccurate,
sometimes from either partial suggestions or for want of
suggestions or inquiries."[40] Neither can the Court excuse the
alleged absence of a camera as a justifiable reason for non-
compliance with the photography rule, since the cause of
such absence was never explained. Nor does the plain
allegation that the "commotion had already happened" -
without explaining its compelling nature - dispense with the
necessity for the seized items to be properly inventoried. It is
well-settled that the procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 is a
matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a
simple procedural technicality.[41] Therefore, it must be
shown that earnest efforts were exerted by the police
officers involved to comply with the mandated procedure so
as to convince the Court that the failure to comply was
reasonable under the given circumstances. Since this was not
the case here, the Court is impelled to conclude that there
has been an unjustified breach of procedure and hence, the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been
compromised. Consequently, Manansala's acquittal is in
order.

People v. Crispo and MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS DURING THE BUY BUST,
Herrera, 2018 GR MERE ABSENCE OR UNAVAILABILTY IS NOT SUFFICIENT
No. 230065, 14
March 2018 MERE STATEMENTS OF UNAVAILABILITY, ABSENT ACTUAL
SERIOUS ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT THE REQUIRED WITNESSES
ARE UNACCEPTABLE

Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual

serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are
unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.52
These considerations arise from the fact that police officers
are ordinarily given sufficient time-beginning from the
moment they have received the information about the
activities of the accused until the time of his arrest-to
prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make
the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well
that they would have to strictly comply with the set
procedure prescribed in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. As
such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons
 for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince
the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with
the mandated procedure, and that under the given
circumstances, their actions were reasonable.

Thus, for failure of the prosecution to provide justifiable

grounds or show that special circumstances exist which
would excuse their transgression, the Court is constrained to
conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items
purportedly seized from Crispo have been compromised. It is
settled that in a prosecution for the sale and possession of
dangerous drugs under RA 9165, the State carries the heavy
burden of proving not only the elements of the offense, but
also to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti, failing in
which, renders the case for the State insufficient to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

MACAPUNDAG Mar CITING UMIPANG 2012 WHEN THE ABSENCE OF WITNESSES

13, 2017 GRNO. ARE UNEXPLAINED, OR WHOSE EXPLANATION IS
225965 INSUFFICIENT

In the present case, the prosecution did not even bother to

explain why the inventory and photograph of the seized
evidence were not made either in the place of seizure and
arrest or at the police station, as required by the IRR in case
of warrantless arrests, or why the marking of the seized item
was not made at the place of seizure in the presence of
Macapundag. It was also silent on the absence of a
representative from the DOJ, the media and an elected
public official to witness the inventory and receive copies of
the same. Similarly unexplained was the lack of inventory
and photographs of the seized items.[40] Accordingly, the
plurality of the breaches of procedure committed by the
police officers, unacknowledged and unexplained by the
State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt against the accused, as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the corpus delicti had been compromised.[41] It has
been repeated in jurisprudence that the procedure in
Section 21 of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and
cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality;
or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of
illegal drug suspects.[42]

MAMANGON 2018 PROSECUTION HAVE THE POSITIVE DUTY TO PROVE

GRNO. 229102 COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 21
29 JAN 2018
Verily, procedural lapses committed by the police officers,
which were unfortunately unacknowledged by the State,
militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
against the accused, as the integrity and evidentiary values
of the corpus delicti had been compromised. It is well-settled
that the procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 is a matter of
substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple
procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment
to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. As such, since the
prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for non-
compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, as well as its IRRR,
Mamangon’s acquittal is perforce in order. [citations omitted]

Xxx

In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they

have the positive duty to prove compliance with the
procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended.
As such, they must have the initiative not only to
acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from
the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial
court. Since compliance with this procedure is determinative
of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti
and ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact
that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or even
threshed out in the court/s below, would not precluded the
appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining
the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the
procedure had been completely complied with, and if not,
whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If
no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate court’s
bounden duty to acquit the accused and, perforce, overturn
a conviction.”

People v. Sagana THE MINISCULE QUANTITY OF CONFISCATED ILLICIT DRUGS

G.R. No. 208471, HEIGHTENS THE IMPORTANCE OF A MORE STRINGENT
August 02, 2017 CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 21

Trial courts should thoroughly take into consideration "the

factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic
Act No. 9165."107 Thus, "[c]ourts must employ heightened
scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond
 reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule
amounts of drugs [for] [t]hese can be readily planted and
tampered."108

The miniscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs heightens

the importance of a more stringent conformity with Section
21,109 which the police officers in this case miserably failed
to do so. The significant lapses committed, as well as their
failure to explain their non-compliance with the directives
of the law, cast doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti.
With these circumstances, this Court acquits accused-
appellant Sagana as his guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.

PRESENCE OF 3RD PARTY REPRESENTATIVES IN THE BUY-BUST

OPERATION AND NOT SIMPLY DURING THE INVENTORY.

Similarly, none of the required third-party representatives

was present during the seizure and inventory of the
dangerous articles. Their presence in buy-bust operations
and seizure of illicit articles in the place of operation would
supposedly guarantee "against planting of evidence and
frame up."85 In other words, they are "necessary to insulate
the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any
taint of illegitimacy or irregularity."

To underscore, the prosecution "has the positive duty to

establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting
the representatives enumerated under Section 21 . . . or
that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so." 87 In
this case, the records were bereft of any explanation why
the third-party representatives were present only during
the belated photographing88 of the confiscated articles.
Hence, the very purpose of their mandated presence is
defeated.

PEOPLE V. INSULATING PRESENCE OF THE WITNESSES IN DRUG

MENDOZA OPERATIONS

23 JUNE 2014 To start with, the State did not show the presence during the
Grno. 192432 seizure and confiscation of the contraband, as well as during
the physical inventory and photographing of the contraband,
of the representatives from the media or the Department of
 Justice, or of any elected public official. Such presence was
precisely necessary to insulate the apprehension and
incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or
irregularity.

XXX

The consequences of the failure of the arresting lawmen to

comply with the requirements of Section 21(1), supra, were
dire as far as the Prosecution was concerned. Without the
insulating presence of the representative from the media or
the Department of Justice, or any elected public official
during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, the
evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the
evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under
the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972)
again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of
shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and
thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the
incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence
of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain
of custody.

People v. Tomawis THE WITNESSES TO THE BUY-BUST MUST BE PHYSICALLY

PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE APPREHENSION
GRNO. 228890 18
APRIL 2018 The phrase “immediately after seizure and confiscation”
means that the physical inventory and photographing of the
drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately
after, or at the place of apprehension. And only if this is not
practicable, the IRR allows that the inventory and
photographing could be done as soon as the buy-bust team
reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team. By the same token, however,
this also means that the three required witnesses should
already be physically present at the time of the
apprehension - a requirement that can easily be complied
with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust
operation, is by nature, a planned activity. Simply put, the
buy bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring
with them said witnesses.
PEOPLE V. HILARIO A GENERIC NARRATIVE OF BUY-BUST OFFERING NO
G.R. NO. 210610 11 DISTINCTIVE DETAIL CASTS SERIOUS DOUBTS THAT IT
JANUARY 2018 ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE

“PO1 de Sagun's testimony - consisting of generalizations

which lacked material details, riddled with inconsistencies,
and uncorroborated - failed to establish the elements of the
offense charged with proof be yond reasonable doubt.”

“It's a generic narrative of any buy-bust operation, offering

no distinctive detail except for Hilario's name as alleged
seller. PO1 de Sagun failed to describe how he came to know
that Hilario was selling shabu; where Hilario was and what
she was doing that time; how he approached her and asked
to buy shabu from her; how they came to agree on the
purchase price for the shabu; where Hilario got the sachet of
shabu she handed to him; and what his pre-arranged signal
was to show the other police officers that the sale had been
consummated and Hilario could already be arrested - details
which police officers who carried out legit buy-bust
operations should be able to provide readily and completely.

When pressed for details during his cross-examination, PO1

de Sagun was unable to give enlightening answers –“

“So according to PO1 de Sagun, he and his fellow police

officers conducted a buy-bust operation in Brgy. Maguihan
based on information from unnamed source/s that selling of
drugs was rampant in the area; they prepared a pre-
operation report which was not produced in court; they
went to Brgy. Maguihan without a specific target/subject;
they did not conduct any surveillance prior to the buy-bust
operation on January 22, 2008; and they did not know
Hilario or Guadayo prior to the buy-bust operation and the
arrest of the two. How then were the police officers able to
identify Hilario or Guadayo, from all the other residents of
Brgy. Maguihan, as the ones selling drugs in Brgy. Maguihan
and who would be the subject of their buy-bust operation?”

“The lack of specific details on the planning and conduct of

the buybust operation on January 22, 2008 in Brgy.
Maguihan casts serious doubts that it actually took place
and/or that the police officers carried out the same in the
regular performance of their official duties. Relevant herein
 is the following discourse of the Court on buy-bust
operations in People v. Ong1:

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment,

which in recent years has been accepted as a
valid means of arresting violators of the
Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly employed
by police officers as an effective way of
apprehending law offenders in the act of
committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the
idea to commit a crime originates from the
offender, without anybody inducing or prodding
him to commit the offense. Its opposite is
instigation or inducement, wherein the police or
its agent lures the accused into committing the
offense in order to prosecute him. Instigation is
deemed contrary to public policy and considered
an absolutory cause.

To determine whether there was a valid

entrapment or whether proper procedures were
undertaken in effecting the buy-bust operation, it
is incumbent upon the courts to make sure that
the details of the operation are clearly and
adequately laid out through relevant, material
and competent evidence. For, the courts could
not merely rely on but must apply with studied
restraint the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty by law enforcement
agents. This presumption should not by itself
prevail over the presumption of innocence and
the constitutionally protected rights of the
individual. It is the duty of courts to preserve the
purity of their own temple from the prostitution
of the criminal law through lawless enforcement.
Courts should not allow themselves to be used as
instruments of abuse and injustice lest innocent
persons are made to suffer the unusually severe
penalties for drug offenses.

In People v. Doria, we stressed the "objective"

test in buy-bust operations. We ruled that in such
operations, the prosecution must present a
1 476 Phil. 553, 571-573 (2004).
 complete picture detailing the transaction, which
"must start from the initial contact between the
poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to
purchase, the promise or payment of the
consideration until the consummation of the sale
by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the
sale. We emphasized that the manner by which
the initial contact was made, the offer to
purchase the drug, the payment of the 'buy-bust'
money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must
be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to
insure that law-abiding citizens are not
unlawfully induced to commit an offense."

In the case at bar, the prosecution evidence about

the buy-bust operation is incomplete. The
confidential informant who had sole knowledge
of how the alleged illegal sale of shabu started
and how it was perfected was not presented as a
witness. His testimony was given instead by SPO 1
Gonzales who had no personal knowledge of the
same. On this score, SPOl Gonzales' testimony is
hearsay and possesses no probative value unless
it can be shown that the same falls within the
exception to the hearsay rule. To impart probative
value to these hearsay statements and convict
the appellant solely on this basis would be to
render nugatory his constitutional right to
confront the witness against him, in this case the
informant, and to examine him for his
truthfulness. As the prosecution failed to prove
all the material details of the buy-bust operation,
its claim that there was a valid entrapment of the
appellants must fail. (Emphases supplied,
citations omitted

People v. Vicente PROSECUTION MUST ALLEGE AND PROVE THE PRESENCE OF

Sipin y De Castro THE REQUIRED WITNESSES.
G.R. No. 224290,
June 11, 2018 “The prosecution never alleged and proved that the
presence of the required witnesses was not obtained for any
of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was
 impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area;
(2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the
seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory
action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in
his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were
involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended;
(4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media
representative and elected public official within the period
required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Could prove
futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the
threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time
constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which
often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law
enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required
witnesses even before the offenders could escape.”

People v. Allingag  THE ABSENCE OF A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE DOJ

et.al. G.R. No. DURING THE INVENTORY OF THE SEIZED ITEMS WAS
233477, July 30, NOT JUSTIFIABLY EXPLAINED BY THE PROSECUTION.
2018
“Under the original provision of Section 21, after seizure and
confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending team was
required to immediately. conduct a physical inventory and
photograph of the same in the presence of (1) the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) a
representative from the media and (3) the DOJ, and (4) any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is
assumed that the presence of these three persons will
guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame up," i.e.,
they are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and
incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or
irregularity."23 Now, the amendatory law mandates that the
conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized
items must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an
elected public official and (3) a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy thereof. In the present
case, the old provisions of Section 21 and its IRR shall apply
since the alleged crime was committed before the
 amendment.

In this case, the absence of a representative from the DOJ

during the inventory of the seized items was not justifiably
explained by the prosecution. A review of the transcript of
stenographic notes does not yield any testimony from the
arresting officers as to the reason why there was no
representative from the DOJ. In his testimony, PO3 Briones
merely confirmed the presence of a barangay kagawad and
a representative from the media during the inventory of the
seized items x x x”

 THE RULES REQUIRE THAT THE APPREHENDING

OFFICERS DO NOT SIMPLY MENTION A JUSTIFIABLE
GROUND, BUT ALSO CLEARLY STATE THIS GROUND IN
THEIR SWORN AFFIDAVIT, COUPLED WITH A
STATEMENT ON THE STEPS THEY TOOK TO PRESERVE
THE INTEGRITY OF THE SEIZED ITEM.

“Certainly, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to

show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid
down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. 28 It has
the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such
a way that, during the proceedings before the trial court, it
must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived
deviations from the requirements of the law. 29 Its failure to
follow the mandated procedure must be adequately
explained and must be proven as a fact in accordance with
the Rules on Evidence. The rules require that the
apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable
ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn
affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to
preserve the integrity of the seized item. 30 A stricter
adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of
illegal drugs seized is miniscule since it is highly susceptible
to planting, tampering, or alteration.31

There being no justifiable reason for the non-compliance of

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the identity of the seized items
has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus,
this Court finds it appropriate to acquit the appellants in this
case.”
People v. Ga-a, G.R. THE WITNESSES TO THE BUY-BUST MUST BE PHYSICALLY
No. 222559, 06 June
2018 PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE APPREHENSION

“In all of these cases, the photographing and inventory are

required to be done in the presence of any elected public
official and a representative from the media and the DOJ who
shall be required to sign an inventory and given copies
thereof. By the same intent of the law behind the mandate
that the initial custody requirements be done "immediately
after seizure and confiscation," the aforesaid witnesses must
already be physically present at the time of apprehension and
seizure -a requirement that can easily be complied with by
the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is,
by its very nature, a planned activity. Simply put, the buy-bust
team had enough time and opportunity to bring with them
these witnesses.”

“In other words, while the physical inventory and

photographing is allowed to be done "at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizure," this does not dispense with the requirement of
having the DOJ and media representative and the elected
public official to be physically present at the time of and at or
near the place of apprehension and seizure so that they can
be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the
seized drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."

“To reiterate, the three (3) insulating witnesses must be

present at the time of seizure of the drugs such that they
must be at or near the intended place of arrest so they can
be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the
seized items "immediately after seizure and confiscation."
These witnesses must sign the inventory and be given copies
thereof. In the present case, from the evidence of the
prosecution itself, none of the witnesses were present during
the seizure and confiscation of the subject drugs. Moreover,
only two (2) of them -the punong barangay and the media
representative -witnessed the photographing and signed the
inventory.

On this note, considering that at the point of seizure, i.e., the

first link in the "chain of custody," irregularities were already
attendant, it becomes futile to prove the the rest of the links
in the chain. Simply put, since "planting" of the drugs was
already made possible at the point of seizure because of the
 absence of all three (3) insulating witnesses, proving the
chain after such point merely proves the chain of custody of
planted drugs.”
PEOPLE V. MARKING AS FIRST LINK
ARPOSEPLE G.R.
NO. 205787 - A weak first link causes the other links to miserably
fail.
22 November 2017
“The first link is the chain of custody was undoubtedly
inherently weak which caused the other links to miserably
fail. The first link, it is emphasized primarily deals on the
preservation of the identity and integrity of the confiscated
items, the burden of which lies with the prosecution. The
marking has a twin purpose, viz: first, to give the succeeding
handlers of the specimen a reference, and second, to
separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other
similar related evidence from the moment of seizure until
their disposition at the end of the criminal proceedings,
thereby obviating switching, “planting,” or contamination of
evidence. Absent therefore the certainty that the items that
were marked, subjected to laboratory examination, and
presented as evidence in court were exactly those that were
allegedly seized from Arposeple, there would be no need to
proceed to evaluate the succeeding links or to determine the
existence of the other elements of the charges against the
appellants. Clearly, the cases for the prosecution had been
irreversibly lost as a result of the weak first link irretrievably
breaking away from the main chain.”

PEOPLE V. RAMOS “Second, the seized items were not properly secured upon
G.R. No. 227336, 26 confiscation. Aside from marking, the seized items should be
February 2018 placed in an envelope or an evidence bag unless the type
and quantity of these items require a different type of
handling and/or container. The evidence bag or container
shall accordingly be signed by the handling officer and
turned over to the next officer in the chain of custody. The
purpose of placing the seized item in an envelope or an
evidence bag is to ensure that the item is secured from
tampering, especially when the seized item is susceptible to
alteration or damage.”

xxx xxx xxx xxx

 “It must be emphasized that a more exacting standard is
required of law enforcers when only a miniscule amount of
dangerous drugs are alleged to have been seized from the
accused.”
People v. Amin, G.R. - IF PROSECUTION WITNESSES DID NOT WITNESS THE
No. 215942, 18 TRANSACTION, THE NON PRESENTATION OF THE
January 2017 POSEUR BUYER IS FATAL

While prior coordination with the PDEA is not necessary to

make a buy-bust operation valid, we are constrained to
reverse the findings of the CA because the non-presentation
of the poseur-buyer is fatal to the cause of the prosecution.
In People v. Andaya, the importance of presenting the
poseur-buyer's testimony before the trial court was
underscored by the Court in this wise:

The justification that underlies the legitimacy of

the buy-bust operation is that the suspect is
arrested in flagranti delicto, that is, the suspect
has just committed, or is in the act of committing,
or is attempting to commit the offense in the
presence of the arresting police officer or private
person. The arresting police officer or private
person is favored in such instance with the
presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty.

Proof of the transaction must be credible and

complete. In every criminal prosecution, it is the
State, and no other, that bears the burden of
proving the illegal sale of the dangerous drug
beyond reasonable doubt. This responsibility
imposed on the State accords with the
presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused, who has no duty to prove his innocence
until and unless the presumption of innocence in
his favor has been overcome by sufficient and
competent evidence.

In the same case, we emphasized that "[t]here would have

been no issue against [the buy-bust operation], except that
none of the members of the buy-bust team had directly
witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the
poseur buyer due to their being positioned at a distance
from the poseur buyer and Andaya at the moment of the
 supposed transaction." It was even noted in that case that
the "members of the buy-bust team arrested Andaya on the
basis of the pre-arranged signal from the poseur-buyer."

While there is a "need to hide [the poseur-buyers]

identit[ies] and preserve their invaluable service to the
police," this consideration cannot be applied to this case,
because, as in Andaya, the "poseur-buyer and the
confidential informant were one and the same. Without the
poseur buyer's testimony, the State did not credibly
incriminate [the accused]."

The testimonies of prosecution witnesses SPO2 Bagas, SPO2

Alvior, Jr., SPO2 Dacara, and P/Insp. Ramas (who was 10
meters away) cannot be considered as eyewitness accounts
of the illegal sale. There was no indication that they directly
saw an illegal drug being sold to the poseur-buyer. In People
v. Guzon, we held that "the police officer, who admitted that
he was seven (7) to eight (8) meters away from where the
actual transaction took place, could not be deemed an
eyewitness to the crime."

People v. Año, G.R. - SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE CLAUSE WILL NOT APPLY

No. 230070, 14 IF PROSEC COULD NOT PROVIDE A CREDIBLE
March 2018 EXPLANATION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE.

“While the fact of marking and inventory of the seized item

was established by the attached Inventory of
Seized/Confiscated Items, the records are glaringly silent as
to the presence of the required witnesses, namely, the
representatives from the media and the DOJ. To reiterate,
Section 21 (1) of RA 9165, prior to its amendment by RA
10640, as well as its IRR requires the presence of the
following witnesses during the conduct of inventory and
photography of the seized items: (a) the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (b) any elected
public official; and (c) a representative from the media and
the DOJ. In their absence, the prosecution must provide a
credible explanation justifying the noncompliance with the
rule; otherwise, the saving clause under the IRR of RA 9165
(and now, the amended Section 21, Article II of RA 9165)
 would not apply.

Here, no such explanation was proffered by the prosecution

to justify the procedural lapse. It then follows that there are
unjustified gaps in the chain of custody of the items seized
from Año, thereby militating against a finding of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, which resultantly warrants his acquittal. It
is well-settled that the procedure under Section 21, Article II
of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be
brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse
ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug
suspects.”
People v. Cabezudo
G.R. No. 232357, 28 - The state bears not only the elements for illegal
November 2018 possession of dangerous drugs but also of the
corpus delicti or the body of the crime.
People v. Pangan,
G.R. No. 206965, 29 - The illicit drugs themselves comprise the corpus
November 2017 delicti of the charge and its existence is necessary to
obtain a judgment of conviction and therefore its
identity must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
People v. Ching G.R.
No.223556, 09 - In order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on the
October 2017 question of identity of the illicit drug, the
prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of
People v. Bangalan, custody. As the proponent of the offense it must
G.R. No. 232249, 03 account for each link in the chain of custody over
September 2018 the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure
until its presentation in court as evidence of the
corpus delicti.
People v. Dimaano,
G.R. No. 144481, 10 - Testimony as to the chain of custody must be
February 2016 presented
People v. Villarta
G.R. No. 217887, 14 - Definition of chain of custody
March 2018
People v. Alboka
G.R. No. 212195, 21 - Establish links in the chain
February 2018
People v. Oliva G.R.
No. 234156 07 - Presence of the mandatory witnesses to serve as
January 2019, guarantee against planting of evidence and frame
up, necessary to insulate the apprehension and
incrimination proceedings from any taint of
 illegitimacy or irregularity.
People v. Moner
G.R. No. 202206, 5 - Prosecution offered no explanation of the deviation
March 2018 from acceptable norm for chain of custody rule in
drug cases
People v. Asjali, G.R.
No. 216430, 03 - Failure to establish corpus delicti when prosecution
September 2018 fails to accound for the very first link in the chain of
custody and the primordial lacuna compromised the
integrity and evidentiary value of the drug evidence.
People v. Guieb,
G.R. No. 233100, 14 - Failure of the prosecution to provide justifiable
February 2018 grounds for non compliance of section 21 warrants
acquittal
People v. Saragena
G.R. No. 210677, 23 - Indeed prosecution’s procedural short-cut finds no
August 2017 basis in fact or law. Its failure to comply with the
cahin of custody rule is equivalent to its failure to
establish the corpus delicti, and therefore, its failure
to prove that the offense was indeed committed.
Grno 211995
- Prosec has no business keeping evid for pnp/pdea