Dimas was arrested after a valid buy-bust operation. Macario, the policeman who acted as poseur-buyer, inventoried and photographed ten (10) sachets of shabu in the presence of a barangay tanod. The inventory was signed by Macario and the tanod, but Dimas refused to sign. As Macario was stricken with flu the day after, he was able to surrender the sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory only after four (4) days. During pre-trial, the counsel de oficio of Dimas stipulated that the substance contained in the sachets examined by the forensic chemist is in fact methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Dimas was convicted of violating Section 5 of RA 9165. On appeal, Dimas questioned the admissibility of the evidence because Macario failed to observe the requisite “chain of custody” of the alleged “shabu” seized from him. On behalf of the State, the Solicitor General claimed that despite non-compliance with some requirements, the prosecution was able to show that the integrity of the substance was preserved. Moreover, even with some deviations from the requirements, the counsel of Dimas stipulated that the substance seized from Dimas was shabu so that the conviction should be affirmed.
[a] What is the “chain of custody” requirement in drug offenses? (2.5%)
[b] Rule on the contention of the State. (2.5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
(a) Chain of custody is the recorded custody of seized drugs to ensure evidence integrity; and (b) the State's contention is meritorious. Under Section 21 of RA 9165, chain of custody requires four links: seizure, turnover
Unlock the full Criminal Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What does the 'chain of custody' rule under Section 21 of RA 9165 primarily protect?
The chain of custody rule guarantees that the identity and integrity of seized illegal drugs are preserved.
Under RA 9165, under what condition may procedural non-compliance in the chain of custody be excused?
Procedural lapses are excused under the saving clause if justified and the evidence's integrity is preserved.
What four essential links comprise the chain of custody in illegal drug prosecutions?
The chain of custody consists of seizure, turnover to investigator, turnover to forensic chemist, and submission to court.
What is the legal effect when defense counsel stipulates during pre-trial that seized sachets contain shabu?
Choices available with full access.
Can an accused raise non-compliance with the chain of custody for the first time on appeal?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Chain of Custody
Under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the chain of custody rule refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized dangerous drugs from the time of confiscation to their eventual presentation in court. The procedure requires inventory and photography of the seized drugs in the presence of required witnesses, followed by proper turnover to the investigating officer, the forensic chemist, and the trial court. This chain of custody ensures that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, which constitute the corpus delicti, are preserved.
2. Preserving Evidence Integrity
Non-compliance with the strict procedural requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not automatically render the seized illegal drugs inadmissible in court. Under the saving clause of the law, non-compliance may be excused provided that the prosecution proves two essential conditions: first, there is a justifiable ground or reason for the procedural deviation; and second, the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated dangerous drugs were properly preserved by the apprehending law enforcement officers throughout the custody chain.
3. Waiver of Objections
In criminal prosecutions for illegal sale or possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, objections to the admissibility of seized evidence based on procedural non-compliance with Section 21 must be raised during the trial before the Regional Trial Court. If the accused fails to object to the chain of custody during trial and explicitly stipulates that the seized substance is in fact methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, the accused waives the right to challenge the admissibility of the evidence for the first time on appeal.