Dear PAO,

My friend was apprehended for selling prohibited drugs. He confided to me that there is a possibility that the drugs confiscated from him might not be the same item presented in court because there were several operations conducted by the law enforcement agency that day, so he thinks that the pieces of evidence confiscated might have been mingled by the operatives. He asked me to inquire as to how he can prove that the drugs submitted in court were not the same item which was actually confiscated from him. Please guide us.

Delco

Dear Delco,

The apprehending officer’s duty in the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs is actually enumerated in Section 21(1) and (3) of Republic Act (RA) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by RA 10640, which states that:

“(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment 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 persons 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: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

“xxx

“(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification.”

Consequently, it is necessary that the links involved in the chain of custody of dangerous drugs and the identity of the confiscated drugs are established beyond reasonable doubt. This finds support in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Bernardino, GR 265434, March 3, 2025, where the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., stated that:

“Notably, however, it remains essential that the identity of the confiscated drugs be established beyond reasonable doubt. To obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.

“In this regard, case law instructs that there are four links in the chain of custody of the purported drugs confiscated from the accused, namely: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.”Applying the above-quoted decisions to your situation, the four links in the chain of custody which must be established are: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, turnover of the seized illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; fourth, turnover of the submitted and marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. This chain of custody must not be broken so as not to create any doubt on the identity of the seized evidence. Your friend can scrutinize this chain for any break that may cast doubt on the identity of the dangerous drugs seized from him.

We hope that we are 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.

We appreciate your trust and support.

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].