CHAIN OF CUSTODY

REGIONAL LEGAL OFFICE 5

SEQUENCE OF PRESENTATION
I. DEFINITION OF CHAIN OF
CUSTODY:
IV. JURISPRUDENCE RE:
RATIOCINATION OF SECOND LINK.
VI. JURISPRUDENCE ON
“FOUR-LINKS.”
II. “ILLUSTRATION OF
III. JURISPRUDENCE ON
CHAIN OF CUSTODY”
“THREE-LINKS”
(three-links)
VI. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE AS
V. JURISPRUDENCE SIGNATORY IN THE REQUEST FOR
WHEREIN THE SEIZING LABORATORY EXAMINATION OF
OFFICER HIMSELF WAS THE SEIZED DRUG ITEM WAS
ONE WHO TURNED-OVER CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME
THE SEIZED DRUG ITEMS TO COURT AS TO HAVE TAKEN
CUSTODY OF SUCH ITEM ALBEIT
THE CRIME LABORATORY MOMENTARILY
VII. GUIDELINES VII. GUIDELINES
Jurisprudence Administrative Issuances.
 The duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment at each stage, from the time of seizure/ confiscation
to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court and destruction. Such record, of movements
and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized
item, the dates and times when such transfers of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence and the final disposition.

[Page 175 of Revised PNP Operational Procedures (2021); and Page 6 of Unified Manual in the Investigation and
Prosecution of Drug Cases; Page 1 of Board Regulation No. 1 Series of 2002 re: Guidelines on the Custody and
Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment)

Chain of custody has been defined as “the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs
at each stage, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until it is
presented to the court.”

(People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 246587, June 26, 2023)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

DEFINITION
 Page 87 of Unified Manual in the Investigation and Prosecution of Drug Cases.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

THREE LINKSILLUSTRATION
 As for the second and third links in the chain of custody, records show that while Agent Sarasua, who is
the apprehending officer, did not turn-over the seized item to the investigating officer, it was,
however, established that she took sole custody of the seized item until she personally delivered the
same to Forensic Chemist Perez. xxx the seized item did not change hands until its delivery to Forensic
Chemist Perez. Thus, the court a quo's ruling, which was thereafter upheld by the appellate court, is proper.

HELD: The accused-appellant Mila Somira was found GUILTY of violation of Sections 5, Article II of RA
9165 as amended by RA 10640.

(People v. Somira, G.R. No. 252152, June 23, 2021)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
 Agent Otic turned over the dangerous drugs to Forensic Chemist Loreto Bravo. We note that Agent
Otic did not turn over the seized item to an investigator at the police station but remained in
custody of the same until he turned it over to Forensic Chemist Bravo for qualitative examination. This
is not a breach of the chain of custody.

HELD: The Appellants Joeffrey Macaspac and Bryan Marcelo were found GUILTY of illegal
transportation of methamphetamine hydrochloride under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.

(People v. Macaspac et al, G.R. No. 246165, November 28, 2019)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
 In People v. Santos, NBI Agent Saul was the one who seized the marijuana leaves and dangerous
drugs paraphernalia from the accused. He, too, marked and inventoried the seized items. He did not turn
them over to an investigator as he immediately submitted the same to the forensic chemist for
qualitative examination. The Court ruled there was no breach in the chain of custody and the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item remained intact from their seizure to their presentation as evidence in
court. (Ibid)

HELD: The accused-appellants Ronaldo Santos was found GUILTY of violation Sections 11 and 12,
Article II of RA 9165.

Observation: It appears from the discussions in the aforesaid jurisprudence that four links is the
general rule.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
 JURISPRUDENCE RE: RATIOCINATION OF SECOND LINK
Dahil explained the importance of the second link in the chain of custody: 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. 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. xxx

In People v. Remigio, the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the chain of custody as the
apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The apprehending officer kept the alleged
shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist. The deviation from the links
in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said case. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

In this case, the prosecution offered no justification as to why the seized items seemingly went straight from the
apprehending officer to the forensic chemist, completely bypassing an investigating officer. xxx The prosecution offered no
such justification here.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
 JURISPRUDENCE WHEREIN THE SEIZING OFFICER HIMSELF WAS THE ONE WHO TURNED-OVER THE
SEIZED DRUG ITEMS TO THE CRIME LABORATORY
The evidence established beyond cavil that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were
preserved. The prosecution was able to prove that, from the time of seizure and confiscation, SPO2 Gilbuena
remained in possession of the drugs, until their marking and inventory, and their delivery to the crime laboratory for
examination, constituting the first and second links. The confiscated drugs were received by PO1 Paltep who later
turned over the same to PCI Banogon who conducted a qualitative and quantitative examination, which constituted
the third link. PCI Banogon issued Chemistry Report No. D-605-201679 stating that the white crystalline substance in
the plastic sachets yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The seized items stayed
with PCI Banogon until these were presented in court, which constituted the fourth link. The elements of the crimes
as charged, as well as compliance with the chain of custody rule, had been duly established.

HELD: The accused Danny Taglucop was found GUILTY of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Art. II, RA 9165 as
amended by RA 10640.

(People v. Taglucop, G.R. No. 243577. March 15, 2022)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE AS SIGNATORY IN THE REQUEST FOR LABORATORY EXAMINATION OF SEIZED DRUG ITEM WAS
CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT AS TO HAVE TAKEN CUSTODY OF SUCH ITEM ALBEIT MOMENTARILY.

In the present case, PO2 Casais maintains that upon reaching the police station, he kept the seized drugs inside
the evidence room before turning it over to the crime laboratory. In certain cases, the apprehending officer and
investigating officer may be the same. In such case, he could have just manifested that he was the one who conducted the
investigation and prepared the necessary documents for the filing of a criminal case against accused-appellant. However,
this Court notes that the Request for Laboratory Examination was made by another officer, Police Chief Inspector Dixon
B. Berango (PCI Berango). However, he was not mentioned at any point during the testimony of PO2 Casais. xxx Even if
PCI Berango's custody over the seized drugs was only momentary, this should have been properly documented to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

HELD: The accused Kevin Dayap was acquitted for violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165.

(People v. Kevin Dayap, G.R. No. 248531, July 4, 2022)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
Comment/Recommendation:

The template for Request for Laboratory Analysis/Chemical Analysis should include a categorical
statement that the actual custodian of the drug specimen prior to submission for the said test is the seizing
officer or Investigator. This is to preempt similar occurrence in People v. Kevin Dayap, G.R. No. 248531, July 4,
2022 wherein the Supreme Court noted (assumed) that the signatory in the Request for Laboratory
Examination also took custody of the drug specimen even momentarily; and thus, must be reflected also in the
documentation of the chain of custody;

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

THREE LINKSJURISPRUDENCE
 From the foregoing, the following are the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-
bust situation:

The first link is the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused
by the apprehending officer;
The second link refers to the turn-over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;
The third link pertains to the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and
The fourth link is the turn-over and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court.

Note: The first link was not established by the prosecution as the marking was not immediately made upon
seizure and at the place of confiscation, and the inventory was not conducted immediately after seizure, in violation
of the guidelines prevailing in jurisprudence, as consolidated in Casa and Nisperos. The saving clause is inapplicable
since neither the prosecution nor the apprehending officers offered any justification for the non-compliance with the
procedure required under Section 21 of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY

FOUR LINKS JURISPRUDENCE

 The fourth link was not proven. The mere stipulation that PSI Tuazon, Chemist, conducted laboratory
examination and the drugs tested positive for shabu is insufficient. First, the stipulation did not establish
that PSI Tuazon received the seized drugs as marked, properly sealed, and intact; that he resealed the items
after examination of the contents; and that he placed his own marking on the items. Second, there was no
stipulation as to the precautionary measures adopted by PSI Tuazon to ensure the integrity of the seized
dangerous drugs. Third, there was no testimony as to the manner the seized items were managed, stored,
preserved, or handled at the crime laboratory after it was examined by PSI Tuazon and before the same were
delivered to the RTC for identification.

HELD: The accused Randel Villanueva was acquitted for violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165, as
amended.

(People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 246587, June 26, 2023)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

FOUR LINKS JURISPRUDENCE

In Nisperos v. People, G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022, En Banc, the Supreme Court laid
down the following guidelines as to the seizure and confiscation of dangerous drugs, to wit:

“In order to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, particularly our law enforcement officers, the
Court hereby adopts the following guidelines:

The marking of the seized dangerous drugs, must be done:

Immediately upon confiscation;

At the place of confiscation; and

In the presence of the offender (unless the offender eluded the arrest);

CHAIN OF CUSTODY GUIDELINES

JURISPRUDENCE
2. The conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the seized dangerous drugs must be done:

Immediately after seizure and confiscation;

In the presence of the accused, or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel; and

Also in the presence of the insulating witnesses, xxx.

3. In case of any deviation from the foregoing, the prosecution must positively acknowledge the same and
prove (1) justifiable ground/s for non-compliance and (2) the proper preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items

CHAIN OF CUSTODY GUIDELINES

JURISPRUDENCE
 It revisited the ruling in People v. Tomawis 832 Phil. 590, 593 (2018) by stressing thereof that the
mandatory witnesses are not required to witness the arrest and seizure or confiscation of drugs or drug
paraphernalia. They need only be readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.

Note: The poseur-buyer failed to mark the seized items immediately upon confiscating it. In fact,
they were only marked during the inventory itself. No justifiable ground was proffered to excuse the belated
marking (half an hour delay in the marking and inventory). Since the first link of the chain was not
established, the SC find it unnecessary to discuss the other links of the chain. Verily, there was no chain to
speak of.

HELD: The accused Mario Nisperos was acquitted for violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY GUIDELINES

JURISPRUDENCE
 A.1.11. The chain of custody of evidence shall indicate the time and place of marking, the names of
officers who marked, inventoried, photographed and sealed the seized items, who took custody and received
the evidence from one officer to another within the chain, and further indicating the time and date every
time the transfer of custody of the same evidence were made in the course of safekeeping until submitted to
laboratory personnel for forensic laboratory examination. The latter shall continue the chain as required in
paragraph B.5 below.

(Page 3 of Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of RA 9165 as
amended by RA 10640)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY GUIDELINES

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCES
 B.5. In any case, the chain of custody of the seized/confiscated items received from the
apprehending officer/team, and examined in the forensic or crime laboratory shall be observed, where it
shall document the chain of custody each time a specimen is handled, transferred or presented in court until
its disposal, and every individual in the chain of custody shall be identified following the laboratory control
and chain of custody form.

(Page 4 of Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of RA 9165 as
amended by RA 10640)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY GUIDELINES

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCES
Chain of Custody

a) To ensure the preservation of the integrity and identity of the drug evidence, the chain of custody form
shall indicate:

(1) The time and place of the search;

(2) The names of the officers who marked, inventoried and sealed the seized items;
(3) Location of the evidence at the time it was found. If the same was seized from an individual, it
should note exactly where on the person the evidence was found (e.g. right front pocket);
(4) Type of operation for which the evidence was obtained (e.g. evidence of a sale, implementation of
search warrant);
(5) Item numbers of the seized items in numerical sequence consistent with the inventory sheet;
(6) Detailed description of the article at the time it was seized.
(7) Names of officers who took custody and in what capacity they received the evidence from one officer
to another within the chain; and

CHAIN OF CUSTODY GUIDELINES

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCES
(8) Time and date every time the transfer of custody of the same evidence were made in the course of safekeeping
until submitted to laboratory personnel for forensic laboratory examination and presentation in court.

b) The receipt of evidence must be acknowledged by all officers receiving the evidence, whether in the same or a
separate document. Such receipt shall form part of the case folder of the transmitting unit.

c) The evidence custodian, when applicable, must maintain a logbook that contains information on:
(1) The person who turned in the evidence for safekeeping;
(2) The date and time thereof;
(3) The person who received it;
(4) The person who requested the same for whatever purpose, who shall affix his/her name, signature, date and
time in the logbook. When a piece of evidence is turned in, the custodian should check the identification mark on
the piece of evidence to ensure that it is the same item and determine that the item is in the same condition as
when it was discovered. Any change in the physical appearance of the evidence should be noted and recorded.

[Pages 69-70 of Revised PNP Operational Procedures (2021)]

CHAIN OF CUSTODY GUIDELINES

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCES
 “T” - Chain of Custody Form for Drug Evidence
“U” - Chain of Custody Form for Non-Drug Evidence
“V” - Chain of Custody Form for Laboratory

[Prescribed formats in Pages 236-238 of Revised PNP Operational Procedures (2021)]

CHAIN OF CUSTODY GUIDELINES

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCES
END OF PRESENTATION

THANK YOU!