2C CARL JOHNWYNE LINGCORAN DECEMBER 2,

2021

SECTION 8/CL 2023 SEATWORK

NO.11

After a successful entrapment operation by the PNP-Drugs Enforcement Group,

Mr. D, a known drug pusher, was arrested on January 15, 2019 for having been caught
in flagrante delicto selling a pack of shabu, a prohibited drug, to the poseur-buyer.
Consequently, Mr. D was frisked by the arresting officer, and aluminum foils, plastic
lighters, and another plastic sachet of shabu were obtained from him. The items were
marked five hours later upon confiscation, and they were likewise inventoried and
photographed at a restaurant nearby which is not the place of arrest. Throughout the
process, only a media representative was able to witness the conduct of the marking,
inventory, and photography of the seized items in the presence of Mr. D. Due to
unjustified reasons, the PNP-Drugs Enforcement Group was able to surrender the
sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory only after four (4) days. Mr. D was then charged
with the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. In defense,
he lamented that the chain of custody procedure under Section 21, Article II of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was not followed. Is the contention of Mr.
D Meritorious?

ANSWER:

YES. The contention of Mr. D is meritorious. According to the law about the
Chain of Custody procedure under Section 21, Article II of Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, the PNP-Drugs Enforcement Group was not able to follow the stated
rule thereof regarding the Chain of custody procedure. Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165
requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation, to immediately conduct
a physical inventory of, and photograph, the seized drugs in the presence of: (a) the
accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel; (b) a representative from the media; (c) a
representative from the DOJ; and (d) an elected public official. These four (4) witnesses
should be present at the time of the apprehension of the accused and must all sign the
copies of the inventory and obtain a copy thereof.

In the case stated above, the items which may have served as evidence were
marked five hours later upon confiscation, and were accounted, inventoried and
photographed at a restaurant nearby and not exactly at the place where the arrest was
made. In the presence of Mr. D was done the conduct of the marking, accounting,
inventory, and photography of the seized items, together with a media representative to
serve as a witness of the overall process. After four (4) days the PNP-Drugs
Enforcement Group surrendered the sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory, and this
action violates the rule on the Chain of Custody as stated above.

Therefore, the police officers implementing R.A. No. 9165 failed to comply with
the procedure laid out, and the seizure and custody over the illegal drugs was void and
INVALID because there is no justifiable ground for such noncompliance with the rule of
law.