Chain of custody

In trying drug cases, courts should be extra vigilant against the planting of evidence to ensure that an innocent person would not suffer the unusually severe penalties of drug offenses. They should observe the “chain of custody” method in admitting evidence as exhibits, especially the dangerous drugs supposedly seized. This method is explained in this case of Suzy.

Suzy was accused of selling, dispensing, delivering and transporting or distributing 0.14 grams of shabu in violation of Section 5 Article II of R.A. 9165 after being caught in an alleged buy bust operation.

During her trial, PO1 Tess of the local police District Drug Enforcement Unit (DDEU) testified on the buy bust operation their team conducted. She said that on November 5, 2002, an informant whom she does not know personally and met for the first time only came to their office and told them that they could see Suzy standing and selling drugs along a street in their barangay.

Upon receiving such information PO1 Tess further testified: that their chief immediately formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation with her acting as poseur buyer, PO1 Bert as team leader and PO1 Gerry and Fil as members; that she was given P500 as buy bust money which she marked with her initials “TBR”; that at about 4 p.m. of the same day, the team proceeded to the place; that on reaching the place she and the informant started walking along the street as the other team members strategically positioned within the vicinity; that upon seeing Suzy standing at the side of the street the informant approached Suzy and introduced her as a “kaibigan ko i-iscore daw siya”; that Suzy thereupon asked her how much she would buy to which she replied P500 at the same time handing to Suzy the P500 bill; that in turn Suzy gave her a small plastic sachet; that at the same instant another man appeared from nowhere and told Suzy that he also wanted to “score”; that almost simultaneously she carried out the pre-arranged hand signal to her colleagues and embraced Suzy as she introduced herself as a police officer; that the team members rushed towards them and PO1 Bert immediately searched Suzy and recovered the buy-bust money; that on their way back to the Police HQ she marked the sachet recovered from Suzy with her initials; that the team then turned over the mark money to the desk officer and transmitted the sachets to the PNP crime laboratory for examination; that the chemistry report dated November 8, 2002 the contents of the sachets were found positive for shabu which she submitted to the court.

While Suzy denied the charges and told the court that she was never at the vicinity as testified by PO1 Tess, the court still convicted her and sentenced her to life imprisonment relying more on the prosecution’s version. Was the court correct?

No. In the prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the dangerous drugs is the very corpus delicti of the crime, hence its existence is an indispensable requisite for conviction. It is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude. This can be done by observing “chain of custody” requirement.

The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of the exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony in every link of the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in 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.

In this case, there was no physical inventory nor photograph of the sachet and buy bust money taken in Suzy’s or her counsel’s or representative’s presence or even in the presence of a representative from the media and the Department of Justice as required by law. No justification whatsoever was proffered by the apprehending team for its failure to observe the legal safeguards. So Suzy should be acquitted (Jimena vs. People, G.R. 182296, April 7, 2009).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]