Joe Pallugna
THE legal issue of “chain of custody” is taken to the forefront with the massive anti-illegal drugs drive of President Rodrigo Duterte which resulted in the arrest of thousands of suspects. This list would grow in the next six months and the guidance of the police takes a more important weight.
As discussed in my previous columns, the “chain of custody” was all the more defined by the Supreme Court in the recent case of People of the Philippines versus Steve Siaton (G.R. No. 208353, July 4, 2016), where it had the occasion to rule that there are four links in this chain, explaining that: “The first link in the chain of custody is the seizure and the marking of the dangerous drugs. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or substance by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon his arrest. The marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of criminal proceedings, thereby preventing switching, planting or contamination.”
The second link is the turnover to the investigating officer. The police should ensure that there is clear record of how the arresting officer turns over the drug specimen to the investigating officer, if he is a different person.
The third link is the turnover for laboratory examination from the investigating officer to the crime laboratory. There must be a clear flow of the custody of the drug specimen to avoid and prevent switching or contamination.
The fourth link is the submission to the court for presentation as evidence from the crime laboratory.
Any gaps in the chain, any missing link among the four mentioned, without any valid justification or explanation should result in the inadmissibility of the drugs into evidence and the accused must perforce be acquitted.
In this case of Steve Siaton, the Supreme Court observed that in the testimony in court of the arresting policemen, “no mention was made of when the marking was done and whether it was made in the presence of the accused or any other person.” Hence, the first link was missing.
The High Tribunal also observed: “It was just haphazardly claimed that it was PO1 Ranile who turned over the substance to the crime laboratory. However, the testimonies were silent as to who received the substance from PO1 Ranile… It is curious to note that the one who received the Request along with the specimen was not the chemist who handled the examination.”
As to the fourth link in the Siaton case, the Supreme Court found that “The prosecution merely claimed that Prosecutor Geromo obtained the specimen from the laboratory. However, considering that the chemist who conducted the examination was unable to testify due to his unjustifiable absences, there is no way of knowing how the drugs were kept while in his custody until it was transferred to the court.”
The gaps in the chain of custody become the life-saving line of the defense lawyer in illegal drugs cases. The non-appearance of the chemist is also fatal to the prosecution’s case.
So, in any illegal drugs cases, both the prosecution and the defense should be wary and cautious on this “chain of custody” matter. The conviction or the acquittal of the accused could hinge substantially on this.
(Joe Pallugna is a lawyer based in Cagayan de Oro. E-mail: ajpallugna@gmail.com.)
Disclaimer
Mindanao Gold Star Daily holds the copyrights of all articles and photos in perpetuity. Any unauthorized reproduction in any platform, electronic and hardcopy, shall be liable for copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Rights Law of the Philippines.
