Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody rule; links to be established.

The links that must

be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover
by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized from the forensic chemist to the court. - Lito Lopez v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 188653. January 29, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody; lapses in the strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 must be explained in terms of their
justifiable grounds. The Supreme Court recognized that under varied field
conditions the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165 may not always be possible, and it ruled that under the implementing
guidelines of the said Section “non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items.” SC added that
the prosecution bears the burden of proving “justifiable cause.” In the present
case, the prosecution did not bother to offer an explanation for why an inventory
and photograph of the seized evidence was not made either in the place of
seizure and arrest or at the police station, as required by the Implementing Rules
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 Beran. Indeed, the very identity
of the subjectshabu cannot be established with certainty by the testimony alone of
P03 Sia since the rules insist upon independent proof of its identity, such as the
immediate marking thereof upon seizure. - People of the Philippines v.
JoselitoBeran y Zapanta, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody; mandatory nature. The chain of custody rule
requires that there be testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
the object seized was picked up to the time it was offered in evidence, in such a
way that every person who touched it would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the possession of the
witness, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain. - People of the Philippines v. JoselitoBeran y
Zapanta, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody; marking of evidence in seizures covered by
search warrants distinguished from marking of evidence in warrantless seizures such as a
buy-bust operation. Concerning the marking of evidence seized in a buy-bust
operation or under a search warrant, vis-a-vis the physical inventory and
photograph, it must be noted that there are distinctions as to time and place
under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Thus, whereas in seizures covered by search
warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must be conducted in the place
of the search warrant, in warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation the
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police
station or office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable,
consistent with the “chain of custody” rule. It needs no elaboration that the
immediate marking of the item seized in a buy-bust operation in the presence of
the accused is indispensable to establish its identity in court. Here, none of the
buy-bust team attested that they saw P03 Sia take custody of the
confiscatedshabu, and later mark the sachet at the DAID-WPD office. Even
granting that P03 Sia did mark the same sachet at the precinct, breaks in the
chain of custody had already taken place, first, when he confiscated it from Beran
without anyone observing him do so and without marking the subject sachet at
the place of apprehension, and then as he was transporting it to the precinct,
thus casting serious doubt upon the value of the said links to prove the corpus
delicti.Moreover, the records also show that P03 Sia submitted the sachet to the
laboratory only on the next day, without explaining how he preserved his
exclusive custody thereof overnight. - People of the Philippines v. JoselitoBeran y
Zapanta, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody rule; when relaxed. There are occasions when
the chain of custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the seized items
immediately after seizure and confiscation is allowed to be undertaken at the
police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the
presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. However, even a less-than-
stringent application of the requirement would not suffice to sustain the conviction
in this case. There was no categorical statement from any of the prosecution
witnesses that markings were made, much less immediately upon confiscation of
the seized items. There was also no showing that markings were made in the
presence of the accused in this case. - Lito Lopez v. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 188653. January 29, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody rule; links to be established. The links that must
be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover
by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized from the forensic chemist to the court. - Lito Lopez v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 188653. January 29, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal possession of drugs; elements. The elements of illegal
possession of drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object
which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized
by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
P/Insp. Fajardo testified as to the recovery from the appellant of another 12
pieces of plastic sachets of shabu. After the latter was arrested, P/Insp. Fajardo
stated that PO2 Trambulo conducted a body search on the appellant. This
search resulted to the confiscation of 12 more plastic sachets, the contents of
which also tested positive for shabu. The testimony of P/Insp. Fajardo was amply
corroborated by PO2 Trambulo, whose own account dovetailed the former’s
narration of events. Both police officers also identified in court the twelve plastic
sachets of shabu that were confiscated from the appellant.  - People of the
Philippines v. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan, G.R. No. 200304, January 15, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal possession of drugs; penalties. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance in this case, the imposable penalty on the appellant should be the
indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years
and two months of prisioncorreccional, as maximum. The penalty imposed by the
Court of Appeals, thus, falls within the range of the proper imposable penalty. No
fine was imposed considering that in Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, a fine
can be imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the penalty isreclusionperpetua to
death. - People of the Philippines v. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan,G.R. No. 200304,
January 15, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of drugs; elements. To secure a conviction for the
crime of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, the following elements
should be satisfactorily proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object,
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. As held in People v. Chua Tan Lee, in a prosecution of illegal sale of
drugs, what is material is proof that the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled
with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. In the case at bar, the
testimonies of P/Insp. Fajardo and PO2 Trambulo established that a buy-bust
operation was legitimately carried out in the wee hours of April 3, 1998 to entrap
the appellant. P/Insp. Fajardo, the poseur-buyer, positively identified the
appellant as the one who sold to her six plastic bags of shabu that were contained
in a big brown envelope for the price of P250,000.00. She likewise identified the
six plastic bags of shabu, which contained the markings she placed thereon after
the same were seized from the appellant. When subjected to laboratory
examination, the white crystalline powder contained in the plastic bags tested
positive for shabu. - People of the Philippines v. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan, G.R. No.
200304, January 15, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of drugs; penalties. Article 6363 of the Revised
Penal Code mandates that when the law prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be
applied. Thus, in this case, considering that no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances attended the appellant’s violation of Section 15, Article III of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the
trial court’s imposition of reclusion perpetua. The P5,000,000.00 fine imposed by
the trial court on the appellant is also in accord with Section 15, Article III of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.  - People of the Philippines v. Donald Vasquez
y Sandigan, G.R. No. 200304, January 15, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale or possession of drugs; the evidence of
thecorpusdelicti must be independently established beyond reasonable doubt. It is well-
settled that in the prosecution of cases involving the illegal sale or illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, the evidence of the corpus delicti, which is the
dangerous drug itself, must be independently established beyond reasonable
doubt. In People v. Pagaduan, the Supreme Court ruled that proof beyond
reasonable doubt in criminal prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs demands
that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti, the
body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug. The prosecution must
establish by records or testimony the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit, from
the time it came into the possession of the police officers until it was tested in the
laboratory to determine its composition, and all the way to the time it is offered in
evidence. In the instant case, from the testimony of P03 Sia it is clear that the
apprehending operatives did not, immediately after seizure and confiscation of
the illegal item, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused, his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice, and an elected public official, notwithstanding that
they were supposed to have been conducting a planned sting operation. Worse,
the prosecution did not bother to explain why they failed to observe them,
although they knew these procedures were intended to preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the item seized. Moreover, none of the other witnesses of the
prosecution could corroborate the culpatory narrative of P03 Sia at any of its
material points to create the successive links in the custody of the seized
drug. - People of the Philippines v. JoselitoBeran y Zapanta, G.R. No. 203028,
January 15, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs; chain of
custody; corpus delicti. In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the prosecution must show the chain of custody over the
dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous
drug itself. The chain of custody rule comes into play as a mode of authenticating
the seized illegal drug as evidence. It includes testimony about every link in the
chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened
to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and
the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not
in the chain to have possession of the same. Indeed, it is from the testimony of
every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be
derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized
from the accused. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons
from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the
apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence and
on allegations of robbery or theft. - Lito Lopez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
188653. January 29, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs; chain of
custody; effect of failure to mark. Failure of the authorities to immediately mark the
seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and
suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties. Failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the
accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on
reasonable doubt. The Chemistry Report, containing a description of the items
seized, does not show or make any mention of any markings made on all the
items seized. As a matter of fact, during the trial, PO3 Desuasido seemingly
could not readily identify the plastic sachets he allegedly seized inside
petitioner’s house. The conflicting testimonies of the police officers and lack of
evidence lead to a reasonable conclusion that no markings were actually made
on the seized items. - Lito Lopez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188653.
January 29, 2014.
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs; chain of
custody; marking. The rule requires that the marking of the seized items should be
done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon
confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are
eventually the ones offered in evidence. Marking after seizure is the starting point
in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband is immediately
marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as
reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence
from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are
seized from the accused until they are disposed at the end of criminal
proceedings, obviating switching, “planting,” or contamination of evidence. - Lito
Lopez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188653. January 29, 2014.
The ruling of this Court in People v. Lagman 593 Phil. 617, 625 (2008) citing People v. Tira, G.R. No.
139615, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 134.39 is instructive.1âwphi1 It held that illegal possession ofregulated
drugs is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the
prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs.
Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or control of the accused. On the other
hand, constructive possession exists whenthe drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or
when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found.Exclusive
possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise
control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.

Doubtless, the constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal
right, which may be waived.44 However, to be valid, the consent must be voluntary such that it
is unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.45
Relevant to this determination of voluntariness are the following characteristics of the person
giving consent and the environment in which consent is given: (a) the age of the consenting
party; (b) whether he or she was in a public or secluded location; (c) whether he or she objected
to the search or passively looked on;46 (d) his or her education and intelligence; (e) the presence
of coercive police procedures; (f) the belief that no incriminating evidence will be found;47 (g)
the nature of the police questioning; (h) the environment in which the questioning took place;
and (i) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. G.R. No. 215305

MARCELO G. SALUDAY, Petitioner

vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent