- Advertisement -

Joe Pallugna

THIS is a case where the police officer arrested the accused based on alleged an buy-bust operation in Manila where the issue of chain of custody came up all the way to the Supreme Court as the accused was convicted by the Regional Trial Court which judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

- Advertisement -

On review, the Supreme Court explained in the case of People of the Philippines versus Romeo Lintag (G.R. No. 219855, Sept. 6, 2016), that while strict adherence to the said rule is desired, any deviation from the same is acceptable so long as there is ample justification for the same and that the evidentiary value of the seized contraband is preserved. Says the High Tribunal: “To expand, Section 21 of RA 9165 provide the “chain of custody rule” outlining the procedure that the apprehending officers should follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve its integrity and evidentiary value. It requires, inter alia, that:

“(a) the apprehending team that has initial custody over the seized drugs immediately conduct an inventory and take photographs of the same in the presence of the accused and the person from whom the seized items were seized, or of the accused’s or the person’s representative or his counsel, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elective official who shall then sign the copies of the inventory; and

“(b) the seized drugs be turned over to PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from its confiscation for examination purposes. While the ‘chain of custody rule’ demands utmost compliance from the aforecited officers, Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 as well as jurisprudence nevertheless provide that non-compliance with the requirements of this rule will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, so long as: (a) there is justifiable ground for such non-compliance; and (b) the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Hence, any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.”

In this present case of Lintag, the Supreme Court ruled that “An examination of the records, however, reveals that as indicated in the PNP Crime Laboratory’s receiving stamp on the request for laboratory examination, it was SPO3 Valdez – and not SPO2 Gonzales – who delivered the request and presumably, the seized plastic sachets as well, to Forensic Chemical Officer Mariano. This immediately puts into question how SPO3 Valdez came into possession of the seized items, which was neither explained by the prosecution through presentation of testimonial or documentary evidence, nor sufficiently addressed by the court a quo. Thus, absent any adequate explanation on the matter, there arises a substantial gap in the chain of custody of the plastic sachets seized from Lintag.”

Lintag was acquitted by the Supreme Court as the officer who arrested the accused was not the one who brought the drugs to the police station and another police officer brought the specimen to the crime laboratory for examination, with no explanation how this happened nor was there evidence that the specimen were handled and preserved properly.

This stands as a clear reminder for the arresting officers to be always cautious to comply with the chain of custody rule. In the same wise, defense counsels should be prudent in not neglecting to scrutinize the possible gaps in the chain of custody of the drugs so as to ensure that they were not tampered with, mixed with other seized items, or contaminated with.

(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.

- Advertisement -