Dear PAO,

I was arrested by police authorities in an alleged buy-bust. During the trial, the forensic chemist presented the specimen of confiscated drugs with markings ending with “16.” However, the letter from the police investigating officer requesting a forensic examination states that the seized item bears markings that end with “2016,” with the digits “20” struck off, making it appear that the letter request pertains to the specimen of confiscated drugs. Please enlighten me if this discrepancy may cast doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of confiscated drugs.

Lloyd

Dear Lloyd,

Paragraph 1, Section 21 of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Acts of 2002,” as amended by Republic Act 10640, provides: “The apprehending team… shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”

In People vs Casa (GR 254208, Aug. 16, 2022, Ponente: Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo), the Supreme Court held that in warrantless seizures, the inventory and taking of photographs are generally conducted at the place of seizure. The exception to this rule, where the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items may be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer or team, is when the police officers provide justification that: (1) it is not practicable to conduct the same at the place of seizure, or (2) the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger at the place of seizure.

Recently, in People vs Valencia and Antipuesto (GR 250610, July 10, 2023) penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic MVF Leonen, the Supreme Court held that receipts showing the chain of custody could not be altered or modified while in transit to the next custodian, and hence, even minimal changes in its markings are fatal to its identity and integrity, thus:

“Moreover, the Letter Request for crime Laboratory examination signed by their team leader, Senior Police Officer 1 Carlo E. Desano, identified the specimen for forensic examination as ‘[o]ne (1) Big heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu powder/granules marked as FLV/RA-BB-01-16-2016 with signature.’ However, the letter was altered, such that in the last four digits, the ’20’ has been struck off, making it appear that the letter request pertained to a specimen with the marking ‘FLV-RA-06-16-16.’ This error became apparent in the third link of the chain of custody or during the transfer of the illegal drugs from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist. Cañete (of the PNP Crime Laboratory) received the Letter Request and specimen for forensic examination but acknowledged that the marking in the specimen did not match the marking indicated in the letter request. Despite the discrepancy, she made the fatal mistake of allowing Panggoy to alter the marking stated in the Letter Request from apprehending team: x x x

“Cañete had no personal knowledge whether the specimen submitted for testing was the same sachet seized from accused-appellants. Upon seeing that the actual marking on the specimen did not match the marking stated in the letter request, she should not have accepted the same. Allowing alteration in the letter request broke the third link in the chain of custody. Thus, when the forensic chemist examined and presented the specimen to the trial court, it was no longer certain that they were the same drugs seized from accused-appellants. x x x There being reasonable doubt on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, we acquit accused-appellants.”

Guided by the foregoing, it is clear that the letter requesting a forensic examination must accurately reflect the markings written on confiscated illegal drugs. Minimal alterations would cast doubt on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, which warrants the acquittal of the accused.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]