The rule on chain of custody is a product of the rule that requires

authentication of object evidence, especially those that are not readily

identifiable like drops of blood or oil, other liquids, drugs in power form,
fiber, grains of sand and similar objects. These are easily tampered, altered
or contaminated intentionally or unintentionally.  Under this situation, the
proponent of the evidence must establish a CHAIN OF CUSTODY to
authenticate the object in court. 
Question: Are there instances when establishing the chain of custody is not
necessary? Discuss with at least 2 examples.

Yes, there are instances when establishing the chain of custody is not necessary. When the object
presented as evidence can be easily and readily identified by a witness because it is inherently
distinctive, no chain-of-custody foundation is necessary. This also applies when the object evidence has
inscribed markings or with serial numbers. Thus, in cases where the object evidence is unique and
readily identifiable, the chain of custody need not be established.

Examples:

1. A currency with a serial number of JY200008, which was used in a buy-bust operation, was
presented as an evidence in an illegal drugs case. There is no need to establish chain of custody
in this case to admit the money in evidence, because such money can be identified by its serial
number.
2. A police officer scratched "A.H.", which is his initials, in the casing of the bullets found at the
crime scene. The chain of custody need not be established in this case for the bullets to be
introduced in evidence since the distinctive markings made by the officer make the bullets
readily identifiable.