CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUGS CASES

Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines   chain of custody   as “the duly reco...


Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of custody as “the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Thus, crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused.

 “Marking” means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. (PEOPLE VS. JHON-JHON ALEJANDRO, G.R. NO. 176350, AUGUST 10, 2011, BRION, J.).

Some Cases on Chain of Custody
Sonny Padua was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous drugs and thereby contended that the Officer has failed to comply with the process of chain of custody of the drugs and thereby absolving him to such crime. The court ruled that Non-compliance with the stipulated procedure of Chain of Custody, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. - People of the Philippines vs. Sonny Padua y Reyes, G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010

Non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. - People of the Philippines vs. Reynald Dela Cruz y Libantocia, G.R. No. 177324, March 30, 2011

The failure to conduct an inventory and to photograph the confiscated items in the manner prescribed under Section 21, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9165 cannot be used as a ground for Arrisma’s exoneration from the charge against him/her. - People of the Philippines vs. Nelly Ulama y Arrisma, G.R. No. 186530, December 14, 2011


Marking of the seized drugs must be done immediately after they are seized from the accused and failure to do so suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and raises reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the corpus delict. Marking of the seized drugs 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 of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. - People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Nacua, G.R. No. 200165, January 30, 2013


The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used  as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer

You Might Also Like

0 comments