Petitioners were caught inside a passenger jeepney allegedly holding a pot session. The prosecution posits that the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) members were serving a search warrant to Elsie Valenzuela who was a resident within the area when they noticed a jeep parked near the latter’s house. They approached said jeep and found four men inside together with suspected drug paraphernalia and drugs. The forensic analyst at the Provincial Crime Laboratory Field Office confirmed that one of the two confiscated substances was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Meanwhile, the defense countered in saying that the four men merely drove to the area to inquire from Valenzuela if the baptism of a certain child would proceed the following day. Accordingly, policemen suddenly arrived and searched the jeep. Finding no shabu inside, the policemen allegedly told them to alight the jeep and brought them to Valenzuela’s house. A search was conducted inside, pursuant to the search warrant issued against her, but they were not able to find any shabu.
Issues:
- Whether or not the absence of an inventory and photograph of the specimen purportedly seized affected the continuity of the custody of the same that will tarnish the integrity of the evidence;
- Whether or not the penalty imposed was proper
The petition was granted. Petitioners were acquitted due to failure of the apprehending officers to properly observe the chain of custody rule.
The chain of custody rule requires proof of every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it is presented in court and offered into evidence, such that witnesses constituting the chain are able to testify how it was given and received, including the precautions taken to ensure that the seized item was not altered or tampered with.
The prosecution failed to establish that the shabu was marked upon seizure, creating a gap in the initial stage of the chain of custody. In addition, none of the prosecution witnesses recounted which apprehending officer seized the items and had possession and control thereof after said confiscation and while in transit to the police station.
The gap in the chain of custody caused by the lack of marking upon confiscation undermined the identity and integrity of the confiscated drug, raising reasonable doubt that the specimen presented in court is the same one confiscated from the petitioners.
