1. Nisperos v.

People, GR 250927, 29 Nov 2022 - presence of insulating

witnesses “at or near” place of arrest

FACTS - Mario Nisperos or Junjun of Pallua, was charged with the crime
of selling shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride)
- Claims that the chain of custody was not properly followed
specifically the required witness rule at the time of his
arrest
- Notes
o Witness present: DOJ rep, barangay captain, accused

ISSUE: W/n the chain of custody was complied? NO

RULING People v. Supat where We ruled that "it is their presence at the time
: of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the
source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug."

The presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and

confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the
time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or
near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to
witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and
confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." [

We are not unmindful of the fact that the presence of the mandatory
witnesses at the time of apprehension may pose a serious risk to
their lives and to the buy-bust operation. However, since they may
also be present "near" and not necessarily "at" the place of
apprehension, We stress that they are not required to witness the
arrest and the seizure or confiscation of the drugs or drug
paraphernalia. They need only be readily available to witness
the immediately ensuing inventory.

Here, the purported sale transpired at 11:30 M, inventory took place

half an hour later since the DOJ rep WAS LATE. His late arrival is not
justifiable grounds for the delay. The buy-bust team must have
ensured that the required witness were READILY AVAILABLE for the
immediate conduct of inventory

Marking was also not followed since it was only made during
inventory. IRR states that it must be done in the presence of the
accused IMMEDIATELY after confiscation or seizure

2. People v. Flores, GR 262686, 11 Oct 2023 - drugs insulating witnesses, must

prove identity and credentials

FACTS - Flores and Francisco, along with Louie Truelen (Truelen), were
charged in 2016 for the sale of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu following a buy-bust operation
conducted by the Quezon City Police Department (QCPD).
- The evidence for the prosecution included a Chain of Custody
Form and Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property Form
accomplished by the arresting officers.
- At the bottom of the latter form, appear the names and
signatures of the following insulating witnesses:
o Jun E. Tobias (Tobias), a senior reporter for the media
outlet Hirit/Saksi, and
o Nelson N. Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), a barangay kagawad.
- The press identification card of Tobias was also attached.
However, no other document identifies Dela Cruz as kagawad.
ISSUE W/N the mandatory insulating witness rule was followed? NO
RULING the Court stressed the importance of complying with the mandatory
insulating witness rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, which requires:
- the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items and the photographing of the same immediately
after seizure and confiscation,
- to be done in the presence of the accused, his counsel or
representative, a representative of the Department of Justice
(DOJ), the media, and an elected public official.
- These witnesses shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy.
Purpose of the witness rule who should be at or near the time of
arrest: ensures that there is no planting of evidence

The Court found there is uncertainty regarding the time of the actual
conduct of the inventory and the presence of the mandatory
insulating witnesses due to the deficiencies in the inventory form.

Further, admissions from the police officers show that the insulating
witnesses were not readily available for performance of their
statutory functions, since it took them a significant amount of time to
arrive at the police station.

The Court also ruled that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to
prove the identities and credentials of the mandatory insulating
witnesses, along with their presence at the inventory of the
confiscated items.
- However, there is nothing from the records that could
establish that Dela Cruz was a barangay kagawad.
- As to Tobias, there is a glaring discrepancy between the
signature of the media representative on the inventory form
and that on the media representative’s presented
identification card.
- Finally, the police officers themselves admitted that no other
proof of the said witnesses’ presence during inventory is
present in the record, aside from their supposed signatures on
the inventory form.

Thus, due to the lack of conformity with the relevant rules on

evidence, including the failure to prove the basic fact of at least one
mandatory insulating witness having acted as an elected public
official by witnessing the inventory and signing the inventory form in
his official capacity, the prosecution failed to prove the key element
of compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, which is deemed included
as an element of any relevant offense in the said law.

Thus, due to the lack of conformity with the relevant rules on

evidence, including the failure to prove the basic fact of at least one
mandatory insulating witness having acted as an elected public
official by witnessing the inventory and signing the inventory form in
his official capacity, the prosecution failed to prove the key element
of compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, which is deemed included
as an element of any relevant offense in the said law.

3. People v. Valencia, GR 256610, 10 July 2023 – drugs incorrect marking

discrepancy

FACTS - Valencia and Antipuesto were arrested following a buy-bust

operation by the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special
Operations Task Group of the Negros Oriental Provincial Police
that yielded a large heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
with white crystalline substance, which Dumaguete City Police
Officer I Crisanto Panggoy (Panggoy), the designated poseur
buyer, concluded to be shabu.
- RTC found Valencia and Antipuesto guilty of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 (RA) or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Their
conviction was upheld by the CA, prompting the present
appeal before Court.
- Valencia appealed
ISSUE W/N they are guilty or illegal drugs? NO
RULING In granting Valencia and Antipuesto’s appeal, the Court held that to
be convicted of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the
transaction took place; and (2) the identity and integrity of
the corpus delicti, or the fact of the commission of the crime, were
established.

While the Court found that the transaction happened, as evidenced

by the conducted prior surveillance and the buy bust operations, the
prosecution, however, failed to establish the identity and
integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.

Under RA 9165, among the requirements for the custody and

disposition of the confiscated dangerous drugs and other
paraphernalia is the marking of the seized contraband, which is an
important component of the first link of chain of custody.

The act of marking separates the marked illegal drugs “from

the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the
time of seizure from the accused until disposition at the end
of criminal proceedings,” said the Court.
- “The entire chain of custody is founded on the correct marking
of the specimen because the marking serves as a reference
point for all succeeding handling of the dangerous drugs,” the
Court stressed.

The Court also held that given its crucial purpose, marking should be
done immediately right after the seizure of dangerous drugs to
preclude unnecessary doubts on the first custodial link. “Failure to
mark at the point of seizure endangers the integrity of the chain of
custody,”

The paper trail or the receipts recording the movement of seized

specimen are likewise important evidence showing the chain of
custody. “These documents must accurately reflect the marking
written on the confiscated drugs and the series of transfers.
Succeeding handlers of the seized contraband will have to
rely on the marking stated in these documents and compare
it with the actual marking on the specimen,”

Thus, to preserve the chain of custody, the specimen must bear the
reference marking stated in the paper trail,

In the present case, while the Court found that the marking was done
at the place of arrest, there was, however, a discrepancy in the paper
trail recording the movement of the seized drugs.

Evidence show that Panggoy, as the arresting officer, seized the

sachet of white crystalline substance and marked it as “FLV-RA-06-
16-16” then kept it in his custody. At the police station, he prepared
the inventory form and subsequently, the letter request for the
specimen’s transfer to the crime laboratory. In the letter request,
however, the specimen was referred to as “FLV/RA-BB-01-16-2016”.

During the transfer of the drugs to the crime laboratory, Police

Officer III Michelle Cañete (Cañete) 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, however, Cañete allowed Panggoy to alter

the marking stated in the letter request, by striking out “20.”
The Court ruled that while Panggoy was the seizing officer and
evidence custodian, he had no authority to modify the letter request
reflecting the chain of custody.

As Cañete had no personal knowledge whether the specimen

submitted for testing was the same sachet seized from Valencia and
Antipuesto, she should not have accepted the specimen upon
seeing that the actual marking on the specimen did not
match the marking stated in the letter request.

As a result, 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 Valencia and Antipuesto.
There is thus reasonable doubt on the integrity and identity of
the corpus delicti, necessitating the acquittal of Valencia and
Antipuesto, ruled the Court.

4. People v. Hernandez, GR 253292, 22 Mar 2023 – chain of custody drugs does

not include prosecutor

FACTS - RTC found Arnold Hernandez guilty of sec 11 of dangerous

drugs
o the above-named accused, not being authorized by
law, in the proximate company of at least two (2)
persons did then and there knowingly, willfully, and
criminally possess or have in his custody and control
six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more
commonly known as Shabu,
- The prosecution averred that at about 10:00 p.m. of 02
March 2019, a confidential informant (CI) reported to the
Drug Enforcement Unit of the Batangas City Police Station
about the alleged illegal drug activities inside a
condominium unit rented by accused-appellant.
o Based on said report, the police chief immediately
formed a buy-bust team to entrap accused appellant.
- Accused-appellant denied the charge against him. He
claimed that he was in his condominium unit with his
mistress when someone knocked on his door. When he
opened it, a woman and several armed men barged in. The
armed men, who turned out to be police officers, took his
cellphone and handcuffed him.
ISSUE W/N chain of custody was properly established? NO
RULIN [important] Aside from the lapse in the first link, the police
G officers also failed to strictly follow the chain of custody with a
palpable deviation from the usual procedure in the final link, i.e.
the submission by the forensic chemist of the seized
evidence in court.
- Based on the stipulated testimonies of PO3 Manjares, PO3
Barcelona, and Espina, it was PCI Llacuna [forensic chemist]
who examined the confiscated items and then turned the
same over to PO3 Barcelona, the evidence custodian of the
crime laboratory
- However, instead of keeping the evidence in his custody
until their submission in court, PO3 Barcelona delivered
them to Espina at the OCP of Batangas City on 04
April 2018.
- Notably, the police officers offered no justification or
explanation for turning over the seized evidence to the OCP
when there is nothing that required them to do so.
o Likewise, Espina's stipulated testimony lacked
information on how and when he turned over the
custody of the seized evidence to the trial court.
- This is an unacceptable break in the chain of custody. As
accused-appellant aptly pointed out, the Court had already
emphatically declared in the past that "the City
Prosecutor's Office is not, nor has it ever been, a part
of the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs. It
has absolutely no business in taking custody of
dangerous drugs before they are brought before the
court. "

5. People v. Garcia, GR 261966, 1 Mar 2023 – drugs marking 10 minutes after

FACTS - Lower courts convicted Jefferson Garcia of violating

section 5 and 11 of DD act
o accused, without first securing the necessary
permit, license or authority from the proper
government agency, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession,
custody, and control one (1) piece of small heat-
sealed (sic) transparent plastic sachet containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride also known as
shabu weighing 0.0027 gram [possession]
o accused, without first securing the necessary
permit, license or authority from the proper
government agency, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, deliver and sell two (2)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride also known as
shabu [selling and delivery]
ISSUE W/N chain of custody was sufficiently followed? NO
RULING After a judicious examination of the records, the Court finds
that none of the links of the chain of custody mandated by
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, had been
complied with by the apprehending police officers.

The first link refers to the seizure and marking. Marking is the
placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of
his/her initials and signature on the item/s seized.
- the court explained that consistency with the chain of
custody rule requires that the marking of the seized
items - to truly ensure that they are the same items that
enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in
evidence - should be done
o (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator
o (2) immediately upon confiscation
- The word "immediately" is defined as present; at once;
without delay; and not deferred by any interval of time
- Here, the three heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance that PO 1 Unza
allegedly seized from appellant were not immediately
marked after confiscation
o PO 1 Unza testified that they had to wait
around 10 to 15 minutes before the arrival
of the two insulating witnesses
o A considerable amount of time had already lapsed
before the seized items were marked. Indubitably,
the first link was breached.

6. People v. Yutig, GR 247323, 16 Mar 2023 – drugs chain custody turnover to

investigating prosecutor

FACTS - Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Michael Gregorio Yutig

(accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs in
violation of Sections 5 and 11,
ISSUE W/N chain of custody was followed? NO
RULING It is clear from the foregoing that the police officers called on
witnesses MaquilIan and Enero only after the arrest of accused-
appellant and these witnesses arrived 5-10 minutes later.
With the arrival of the witnesses after the arrest of accused-
appellant, the buy-bust team failed to comply with the
requirement of an immediate inventory of the purported drugs
after seizure.

It cannot also be denied that the prosecution failed to prove

that the police officers observed the second link in the chain of
custody [AO to IO]
- there was no showing that the apprehending officer
properly turned over the seized items to the
investigating officer.
- Let it be noted that PO2 Sapalicio, the poseur-buyer,
confirmed that he remained in the custody of the
sachets of alleged shabu from the time of confiscation
from the accused-appellant until PO2 Sapalicio brought
them lo the forensic chemist.
- Stated differently, there is no indication that he
turned over the subject items to an investigator.
- Consequently, the investigating officer had no
opportunity to verify the completeness of the required
documents and compliance with the law. This
circumstance also presents a clear gap in the chain' of
custody of the seized items