Tag: Forensic Chemist

Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: A Strict Standard for Conviction in the Philippines
Acquittal Based on a Faulty Chain of Custody: Integrity of Evidence is Paramount

G.R. No. 246434, January 24, 2024

Imagine being accused of a crime you didn’t commit, and the only evidence against you is a tiny amount of a substance that could have been tampered with. This is the reality for many individuals in drug cases in the Philippines. The Supreme Court, in Hernald Bermillo y de Vera v. People of the Philippines, emphasizes the crucial importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs. This case highlights how even a minor lapse in procedure can lead to an acquittal, reinforcing the stringent standards required to secure a conviction in drug-related offenses.

The case centered on Hernald Bermillo, who was arrested during a buy-bust operation and found to be in possession of a minuscule amount of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted Bermillo due to a failure in establishing an unbroken chain of custody, specifically regarding the handling of the evidence by the forensic chemist.

The Law on Chain of Custody: Safeguarding the Integrity of Evidence

The chain of custody is a critical legal principle designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of evidence, particularly in drug-related cases. It refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail that records the sequence of custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence. Its importance is rooted in the need to protect the exhibit from contamination, tampering, or substitution, which could affect its probative value and admissibility in court.

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, meticulously outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs:

“SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs…”

The law specifies that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media. The seized drugs must then be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory within 24 hours for examination. Any deviation from these procedures must be justified, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items must be preserved.

Hypothetical Example: Imagine police officers seizing a bag of suspected marijuana during a raid. They immediately mark the bag, inventory its contents in front of the suspect and a barangay official, and take photos. The bag is then handed over to an investigating officer, who secures it in a locked evidence room. The next day, the bag is delivered to the forensic laboratory with a detailed chain of custody form. After analysis, the chemist reseals the bag and returns it to the investigating officer, who presents it in court. This meticulous process helps ensure the evidence’s integrity.

Case Breakdown: Hernald Bermillo’s Journey to Acquittal

Hernald Bermillo’s case began with a buy-bust operation targeting Vilma Matias, who allegedly sold illegal drugs. Bermillo was present during the operation, and police officers claimed to have seen him attempting to discard a plastic sachet containing shabu.
- Bermillo was arrested and charged with violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (possession of dangerous drugs).
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Bermillo.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision.
However, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, focusing on a critical flaw: the incomplete stipulation regarding the forensic chemist’s handling of the evidence.

The Supreme Court emphasized that:

“[I]t is essential for the identity of the prohibited drug to be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, to obviate any unnecessary doubt on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody over the same…”

The Court noted that the stipulation failed to provide details on how the seized items were handled or stored from the time they were turned over to the forensic chemist until their presentation in court. This lack of information raised serious doubts about the integrity and identity of the drugs.

Because the evidence against Bermillo was a minuscule amount of shabu (0.019 gram), the Supreme Court emphasized the need for even stricter compliance with the chain of custody rule. The Court ultimately acquitted Bermillo, stating:

“Considering the prosecution’s failure to establish with moral certainty the identity and the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drugs seized from petitioner, his acquittal must necessarily follow.”

Practical Implications: What This Case Means for Drug Cases

The Bermillo case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of meticulous adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug cases. It underscores that even minor lapses can have significant consequences, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. This ruling reinforces the rights of the accused and places a heavy burden on law enforcement to ensure the integrity of evidence.

For law enforcement, this case emphasizes the need for thorough documentation at every stage of the evidence-handling process. For individuals accused of drug offenses, it highlights the importance of scrutinizing the prosecution’s evidence and challenging any inconsistencies or gaps in the chain of custody.

Key Lessons
- Meticulous Documentation: Law enforcement must maintain detailed records of every step in the handling of seized drugs.
- Complete Stipulations: When dispensing with the testimony of a forensic chemist, stipulations must cover all critical aspects of evidence handling and storage.
- Strict Compliance: Courts will strictly scrutinize compliance with the chain of custody rule, especially in cases involving small quantities of drugs.
Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the chain of custody in drug cases?

A: The chain of custody refers to the chronological documentation of the handling of evidence, from seizure to presentation in court, to ensure its integrity and prevent tampering.

Q: Why is the chain of custody so important?

A: It is crucial to ensure that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused, thereby protecting the accused’s rights to a fair trial.

Q: What happens if there is a break in the chain of custody?

A: A break in the chain of custody can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence, potentially leading to its exclusion from trial or the acquittal of the accused.

Q: What details should be included in the stipulation of a forensic chemist’s testimony?

A: Stipulations must include details regarding the receipt of evidence, its condition (marked, sealed, intact), methods of analysis, and measures to prevent tampering.

Q: What can I do if I believe there were errors in the handling of evidence in my drug case?

A: You should consult with a qualified attorney who can review the evidence and identify any potential violations of your rights.

Q: Does the amount of drugs seized affect the importance of the chain of custody?

A: No, the amount does not change the need for an intact chain of custody, and any amount is enough for prosecution of a drug related case.

Q: How strict is the implementation of the chain of custody?

A: Philippine courts generally strictly implement the chain of custody rule, especially after amendments to RA 9165, to protect individual rights and ensure evidence reliability.

ASG Law specializes in criminal law and drug-related cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.
January 24, 2024

Chain of Custody: Safeguarding Drug Evidence Integrity in Philippine Law

In People v. Fandialan, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to a failure in establishing an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs. This means the prosecution didn’t sufficiently prove that the drugs presented in court were the same ones confiscated from the accused. The Court emphasized the importance of meticulously documenting and preserving drug evidence, highlighting a critical safeguard against potential mishandling or tampering. This decision reinforces the necessity of strict adherence to chain of custody procedures to ensure the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases, protecting individuals from wrongful convictions.

Breaking the Chain: When Doubt Acquits in Drug Cases

This case revolves around Joel Fandialan’s conviction for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Accused of selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), Fandialan faced life imprisonment and a substantial fine. The central legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, a crucial element in proving the corpus delicti of the offenses. The integrity of this chain determines the admissibility and reliability of the drug evidence presented in court.

The prosecution presented evidence that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on information from a confidential informant. PO1 Lubrin, acting as the poseur-buyer, allegedly purchased shabu from Fandialan. After the sale, Fandialan was arrested, and additional sachets of suspected shabu were found in his possession. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the scene. However, the defense argued that Fandialan was merely apprehended while smoking in his yard, with the drugs and money allegedly planted by the arresting officers. This conflicting narrative underscores the importance of adhering to proper procedures to ensure the reliability of evidence.

The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases involving illegal drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty. This requires demonstrating an unbroken chain of custody, accounting for each link from seizure to presentation in court. As the Court noted in Mallillin v. People:

[T]he chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

The Court identified four critical links in the chain of custody: (1) seizure and marking by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) submission of the drug from the forensic chemist to the court. While the prosecution established the first three links, the fourth link proved to be the downfall of their case.

The Court found a critical gap in the fourth link, specifically regarding the handling, storage, and safeguarding of the seized shabu after its examination by the forensic chemist, FC Bombasi. Although the parties stipulated to FC Bombasi’s expertise and the positive results of her examination, vital details were missing. As noted in People v. Villalon, Jr., it is essential for the forensic chemist to testify on:

…the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen.

The stipulation failed to address the condition of the specimens upon receipt, the method of analysis, whether the specimens were resealed and marked after examination, and the manner of handling and storage before, during, and after the examination. This omission was critical. The absence of testimony regarding these details created reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were indeed the same drugs seized from Fandialan. The Court referenced past decisions, such as People v. Dahil, People v. Miranda, and People v. Baltazar, where similar deficiencies led to acquittals.

The importance of the forensic chemist’s testimony or a comprehensive stipulation cannot be overstated. Without it, the integrity of the evidence is questionable. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proving each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, including the unbroken chain of custody. Failure to do so warrants acquittal.

This case serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for handling drug evidence in the Philippines. The chain of custody rule is not a mere technicality; it is a fundamental safeguard against tampering, contamination, and misidentification. The Court’s decision underscores the critical role of meticulous documentation and testimony in ensuring the reliability of drug evidence and protecting individuals from wrongful convictions. While the prosecution may have initially believed they had a strong case, the missing link in the chain of custody created sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal. This emphasis on procedural rigor is a cornerstone of Philippine criminal law, ensuring fair trials and protecting individual liberties.

Moreover, this case highlights the crucial role of forensic chemists in drug-related prosecutions. Their testimony is not merely perfunctory; it is essential for establishing the integrity and identity of the seized drugs. By meticulously documenting each step of the handling and analysis process, forensic chemists contribute to the reliability of the evidence presented in court. In the absence of such testimony, the prosecution’s case is significantly weakened, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, which is essential to prove the identity and integrity of the evidence. The Court focused on a gap in the fourth link: the handling, storage, and safeguarding of the seized drugs after examination.
Why was the forensic chemist’s testimony important?	The forensic chemist’s testimony is crucial for detailing the handling and analysis of the dangerous drugs, including when and from whom the drug was received, the description of the specimen, the method of analysis, and the measures taken to preserve the integrity of the evidence. Without this testimony, doubt arises regarding the identity and integrity of the drug presented in court.
What are the four links in the chain of custody?	The four links are: (1) seizure and marking by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) submission of the drug from the forensic chemist to the court.
What happens if there is a break in the chain of custody?	If there is a break in the chain of custody, it creates reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court are the same as those seized from the accused. This can lead to the acquittal of the accused due to the compromised integrity of the evidence.
*What is the corpus delicti* in drug cases?**	The corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, which in drug cases includes the actual dangerous drug itself. Establishing the identity and integrity of the drug is essential to prove the commission of the offense.
Why was the accused acquitted in this case?	The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the handling, storage, and safeguarding of the seized drugs after their examination by the forensic chemist, creating a gap in the chain of custody.
What does this case highlight about drug-related prosecutions in the Philippines?	This case highlights the stringent requirements for handling drug evidence and the importance of meticulously documenting each step of the process to ensure the reliability of the evidence and protect individuals from wrongful convictions.
What is the role of stipulations in drug cases?	Stipulations can expedite the trial process, but they must be comprehensive enough to cover all essential aspects of the forensic chemist’s testimony, including the condition of the specimens, the method of analysis, and the measures taken to preserve the integrity of the evidence.

In conclusion, People v. Fandialan serves as a critical reminder of the importance of upholding the chain of custody rule in drug-related prosecutions. The meticulous preservation of evidence and the comprehensive documentation of its handling are essential to ensuring fair trials and protecting individual liberties. This case reinforces the need for law enforcement and forensic professionals to adhere strictly to established procedures, safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

July 6, 2022

Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: Doubt Leads to Acquittal

In a ruling that underscores the critical importance of adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases, the Supreme Court acquitted Donato C. Hernandez. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, creating reasonable doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence. This decision reinforces the stringent requirements for handling and documenting evidence in drug cases, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and that convictions are based on reliable and untainted evidence. The failure to properly account for each link in the chain, from seizure to presentation in court, can be fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Missing Links: When Doubt Triumphs Over Presumption in Drug Cases

The case of People v. Donato C. Hernandez revolves around the arrest and conviction of Donato for illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. Following a buy-bust operation, Donato was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The central legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved Donato’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the alleged lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. This case highlights the stringent requirements for handling and documenting evidence in drug cases, emphasizing the importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence presented in court.

In cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” the chain of custody is a crucial element. This principle ensures the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, which are the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, the failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

The chain of custody, as defined by law and jurisprudence, involves several critical steps. These include: (1) seizure and marking of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover of the seized drug to the investigating officer; (3) turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) turnover and submission of the drug from the forensic chemist to the court. Each link in this chain must be clearly established to ensure that the evidence presented in court is the same substance that was seized from the accused. The court has stated:

To ensure the integrity of the seized drugs, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody, as follows: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turn-over of the seized illegal drug to the investigating officer; (3) the turn-over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turn-over and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.

In the present case, the Court acknowledged that the initial steps of the chain of custody were substantially complied with. The seizure and marking of the drugs were conducted in the presence of witnesses, and the items were properly inventoried. There was also no break in the second link, as PO1 Villarino, the apprehending officer, maintained custody of the seized items until they were submitted to the crime laboratory. This substantial compliance with the first two links, however, could not compensate for the subsequent failures in the chain of custody.

The Court found significant lapses in the third and fourth links of the chain. Specifically, the prosecution failed to present PO2 Comia, the officer who received the drug specimens at the crime laboratory, to testify on the condition of the contraband upon receipt and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity. This failure created a gap in the chain, as it was not established that the seized illegal drugs were not contaminated, changed, or altered while in PO2 Comia’s custody. In People v. Sultan, the Supreme Court made it clear that the prosecution has the burden of establishing the identity of the seized items and justifying the absence of key witnesses who handled the evidence.

The prosecution has the “burden of establishing the identity of the seized items.” Considering the sequence of the people who have dealt with the confiscated articles, the prosecution failed to justify why three (3) other significant persons were not presented as witnesses. These persons were the desk officer who supposedly recorded the incident in the police blotter, the investigator who prepared the request for examination, and the police officer who received the articles in the laboratory.” In effect, there is no reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the exhibits inasmuch as it failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the exhibits, which cannot but inure to its own detriment.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the testimony of PCI Huelgas, the forensic chemist, was dispensed with, and her stipulated testimony only covered her findings on the drug sample. It did not address how she handled the specimens from the time of receipt until their presentation in court. This omission left unanswered questions regarding the post-examination custody of the drugs, including who had custody and possession of the specimens after the chemical examination, and how they were handled, stored, and safeguarded. The Supreme Court ruled that:

The fourth link refers to the turn-over and submission of the dangerous drug from the forensic chemist to the court. In drug-related cases, it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was kept. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen.

The failure to provide this crucial information resulted in a missing link in the chain of custody, casting doubt on whether the specimens submitted to the court were the same plastic sachets of shabu that were recovered from Donato. The Court concluded that these lapses fatally compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, warranting Donato’s acquittal.

Finally, the Supreme Court addressed the prosecution’s reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The Court clarified that this presumption cannot be applied when challenged by evidence of a flawed chain of custody. In such cases, the presumption of innocence of the accused prevails. As the Court stated in People v. Siaton:

When challenged by the evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence of the accused.

This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of meticulously following the chain of custody rule in drug cases. The integrity of the evidence is paramount, and any break in the chain can create reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused. Law enforcement officers must ensure that all steps in the chain of custody are properly documented and that all individuals who handle the evidence are available to testify in court.

FAQs

What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the sequence of steps that must be followed to maintain the integrity and identity of seized drugs, from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court. It ensures that the evidence presented is the same substance that was seized from the accused.
Why is the chain of custody important?	The chain of custody is crucial because it safeguards against contamination, alteration, or substitution of the evidence, which could compromise the integrity of the trial. It protects the rights of the accused and ensures that convictions are based on reliable and untainted evidence.
What are the key steps in the chain of custody?	The key steps include seizure and marking by the apprehending officer, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist for examination, and turnover and submission of the drug from the forensic chemist to the court. Each step must be documented and accounted for.
What happens if there is a break in the chain of custody?	If there is a break in the chain of custody, it can create reasonable doubt as to the integrity and identity of the evidence. This may lead to the acquittal of the accused, as the prosecution would have failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is the role of the forensic chemist in the chain of custody?	The forensic chemist plays a critical role in analyzing the seized drugs and providing expert testimony on their composition. They must also testify on how they handled the specimens from the time of receipt until their presentation in court, ensuring the integrity of the evidence.
What is the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties?	The presumption of regularity assumes that law enforcement officers perform their duties properly. However, this presumption cannot be applied when there is evidence of a flawed chain of custody, as the presumption of innocence of the accused prevails.
Who should testify in court to establish the chain of custody?	Ideally, all individuals who handled the evidence, including the apprehending officer, investigating officer, officer who received the evidence, and the forensic chemist, should testify in court to establish each link in the chain of custody.
*What is the significance of the corpus delicti* in drug cases?**	The corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, refers to the actual substance of the illegal drug. Establishing the integrity of the corpus delicti is essential for proving the guilt of the accused in drug-related cases.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Donato C. Hernandez reaffirms the importance of strict compliance with the chain of custody rule in drug cases. This ruling serves as a guide for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, highlighting the need to meticulously document and preserve the integrity of evidence to ensure fair trials and just outcomes. The failure to adhere to these requirements can have significant consequences, potentially leading to the acquittal of individuals charged with drug offenses.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

June 15, 2022

Reasonable Doubt: Safeguarding Rights in Drug Cases Through Chain of Custody

In People v. Wesley Ramos, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. This decision emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with the procedural safeguards outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, particularly Section 21, which mandates the presence of specific witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized items. The ruling reinforces the principle that any reasonable doubt regarding the identity and integrity of the seized drugs must be resolved in favor of the accused, protecting individuals from potential abuses in drug enforcement operations.

When Procedural Lapses Undermine Drug Convictions: A Chain of Custody Breakdown

The case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Pasig City Police, which led to the arrest of Wesley Ramos for illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The prosecution presented evidence that Ramos sold a sachet of shabu to an undercover police officer and was found in possession of three additional sachets. However, the defense argued that the police failed to comply with the chain of custody rule, casting doubt on the integrity and identity of the seized drugs. This failure to adhere to proper procedure became the central issue in the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The chain of custody rule, as enshrined in Republic Act No. 9165, aims to ensure that the drugs presented in court as evidence are the same drugs seized from the accused. This requires a documented trail of the drugs from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court. This safeguard is crucial to prevent tampering, substitution, or planting of evidence, thereby protecting the rights of the accused. The Supreme Court has consistently held that strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is essential to maintain the integrity of drug-related prosecutions.

In this case, the Court found several critical lapses in the chain of custody. First, the inventory and photography of the seized items were not conducted in the presence of a representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service (NPS), as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The arresting officer, PO3 Caponga, admitted that no such representatives were present during the inventory. While the presence of these witnesses is not an absolute requirement, the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for their absence, which it failed to do in this case.

The Court cited People v. Lim, emphasizing that the prosecution must allege and prove that the absence of the required witnesses was due to reasons such as the remoteness of the arrest location, threats to safety, involvement of the elected official in the crime, or the futility of efforts to secure their presence despite diligent efforts. Without such justification, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers cannot be upheld. Here, no justification was offered for the absence of either witness.

Beyond the witness requirement, the Court also found a break in the fourth link of the chain of custody. This link pertains to the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court. The forensic chemist, PSI Vicente, did not testify in court, and the parties merely entered into general stipulations regarding her testimony. Crucially, these stipulations lacked information about the condition of the seized items while in her custody and the precautions she took to preserve their integrity. This gap in the chain of custody raised concerns about the possibility of tampering or contamination of the evidence.

The Court, referencing People v. Angeles, emphasized that inadequate stipulations regarding the forensic chemist’s testimony can lead to the acquittal of the accused. The prosecution must provide sufficient details about the handling of the drugs from the time they were received by the forensic chemist until they were presented in court. Without such details, the integrity of the evidence cannot be assured, and the accused’s right to a fair trial is compromised. The prosecution failed to provide critical details that would prove the preservation of the integrity of the drugs recovered from Angeles.

Building on these principles, the Supreme Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been compromised due to the significant gaps in the chain of custody. This failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements created reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Wesley Ramos.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, as required by R.A. No. 9165, to ensure the integrity and identity of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires a documented trail of seized drugs, from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court, to prevent tampering, substitution, or planting of evidence.
What are the required witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs?	Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the presence of an elected public official and a representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service during the inventory and photography of seized drugs.
What happens if the required witnesses are not present?	If the required witnesses are not present, the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for their absence, such as the remoteness of the location or threats to safety.
What is the role of the forensic chemist in the chain of custody?	The forensic chemist examines the seized drugs and submits a report. The prosecution must also present details of how the drugs were handled before and after their possession by the chemist.
What is the effect of a broken chain of custody?	A broken chain of custody creates reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence, which can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
What are the four links in the chain of custody?	The four links are: (1) seizure and marking, (2) turnover to the investigating officer, (3) turnover to the forensic chemist, and (4) submission of the marked drugs by the forensic chemist to the court.
Why is the chain of custody rule important?	The chain of custody rule is important to protect the rights of the accused and prevent abuses in drug enforcement operations by ensuring the integrity of the evidence.

The Wesley Ramos case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. Law enforcement agencies must diligently comply with the chain of custody rule to ensure the integrity of evidence and protect the rights of the accused. Failure to do so can undermine the prosecution’s case and lead to the acquittal of individuals, regardless of their actual guilt.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

March 15, 2021

Chain of Custody: Safeguarding Rights in Drug Cases

In People v. Galisim, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to critical breaches in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. This ruling reinforces the stringent requirements for handling evidence in drug-related cases, emphasizing that failure to adhere to proper procedures can undermine the prosecution’s case and lead to an acquittal. The decision underscores the importance of protecting individual rights and ensuring the integrity of evidence to prevent wrongful convictions in drug offenses, which carry severe penalties.

Broken Chains: When Drug Evidence Fails Scrutiny

Alvin Galisim was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that he sold and possessed methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, during a buy-bust operation. The defense contested the charges, pointing out significant lapses in the handling of the evidence. The central legal question was whether the prosecution had adequately proven the integrity of the seized drugs, ensuring they were the same substances presented in court, untainted by mishandling or tampering. The Supreme Court, in its decision, scrutinized the procedural lapses, highlighting the importance of maintaining a clear and unbroken chain of custody to protect the rights of the accused.

The chain of custody rule is vital in drug cases because illegal drugs are often indistinct and easily susceptible to tampering or substitution. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution must account for each link in the chain, starting from the seizure and marking of the drugs, to the turnover to the investigating officer, then to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. This ensures that the evidence presented is indeed the same substance that was seized from the accused. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), before its amendment in 2014, outlines the specific procedures to maintain this integrity:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so seized, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

In People v. Galisim, the Court found several breaches of this protocol. Firstly, there was no evidence that representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), or an elected Barangay Official were present during the post-operation procedures. The absence of these mandatory witnesses, required to ensure transparency and prevent evidence tampering, was a significant lapse. Citing People v. Mendoza, the Court reiterated that the presence of these personalities acts as an essential safeguard against the potential switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. Secondly, the buy-bust team took photographs of the seized items at the police station rather than at the place of arrest, violating the requirement that photographs be taken immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the mandated witnesses. The Court emphasized that the presence of witnesses at the time of seizure is critical to prevent the practice of planting evidence, as highlighted in People v. Adobar.

Furthermore, the handling of the evidence from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist was not sufficiently established. There was a lapse of thirteen hours between the arrest and the turnover of the seized items to the forensic chemist, creating doubt on the identity and integrity of the drugs. Finally, the fourth link in the chain of custody, involving the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs after examination, was also not adequately proven. The parties stipulated to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist, but there was no stipulation that the chemist had taken the necessary steps to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as required by People v. Ubungen y Pulido. The stipulation only covered the receipt and examination of the specimens and the issuance of findings in the report, but omitted details of how the specimens were handled before receipt, during examination, and after leaving the chemist’s possession.

The prosecution’s case was further weakened by the fact that Alvin Galisim was not among the three suspected drug dealers whom the buy-bust team initially intended to arrest. This circumstance underscores the need for strict adherence to the chain of custody rule. Despite the possibility of unavoidable deviations due to varying field conditions, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 offer leniency only when justifiable grounds exist and the integrity of the evidence is preserved. The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide an acceptable excuse for the deviation from the strict requirements of the law. As the Court noted, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot substitute for actual compliance with the law or mend broken links in the chain of custody.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved the integrity and chain of custody of the seized drugs, ensuring they were the same substances presented in court. The Supreme Court found critical breaches in the chain of custody.
Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases?	The chain of custody ensures the integrity of the evidence by documenting every step of its handling, from seizure to presentation in court. This prevents tampering, substitution, or contamination, and protects the rights of the accused.
What are the key steps in the chain of custody?	The key steps include seizure and marking, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and submission to the court. Each step must be properly documented and accounted for.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, the integrity of the evidence is compromised, casting doubt on its reliability. This can lead to the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient proof.
Who should be present during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs?	According to Section 21 of RA 9165, the accused (or their representative), a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official should be present. Their presence ensures transparency and prevents evidence tampering.
What is the effect of not having the required witnesses present?	The absence of the required witnesses can be a critical lapse, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused, especially if the prosecution fails to provide a justifiable reason for their absence.
Where should the photographing and inventory of seized drugs take place?	The photographing and inventory should take place immediately after seizure and confiscation, ideally at the place of arrest. If this is not practicable, it can be done at the nearest police station or office.
What is the role of the forensic chemist in the chain of custody?	The forensic chemist examines the seized substance to determine its composition and ensures that it is properly sealed and marked. They also preserve the integrity of the evidence until it is presented in court.
What is the saving clause in the IRR of RA 9165?	The saving clause allows for leniency in cases where there are justifiable grounds for deviating from the strict requirements of Section 21, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, the prosecution must prove that earnest efforts were made to comply with the procedure.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Galisim serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for handling drug evidence and the importance of protecting individual rights. It highlights the necessity for law enforcement to strictly adhere to the chain of custody rule to ensure fair trials and prevent wrongful convictions. Without such adherence, evidence may be deemed inadmissible, potentially freeing the accused.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALVIN GALISIM Y GARCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 231305, September 11, 2019

September 11, 2019

Chain of Custody: Protecting Rights in Drug Cases

In People v. Omamos, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to critical breaches in the chain of custody of seized drugs. The court emphasized that strict adherence to procedures is essential to protect individuals from wrongful convictions in drug-related cases. The decision highlights the prosecution’s failure to properly document and preserve the integrity of the evidence, reinforcing the importance of safeguarding constitutional rights throughout the legal process. This ruling serves as a potent reminder that procedural lapses can undermine the foundation of a drug-related conviction, underscoring the need for law enforcement to meticulously follow chain of custody protocols.

Flawed Evidence: Can Justice Prevail When Drug Handling Fails?

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Mike Omamos y Pajo revolves around an alleged buy-bust operation where Mike Omamos was arrested and charged with selling marijuana. The prosecution presented evidence supposedly seized during the operation, but the defense argued that the police failed to follow the proper chain of custody procedures. This raised critical questions about the reliability and admissibility of the evidence, challenging the very foundation of the charges against Omamos. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether these procedural lapses were significant enough to warrant an acquittal, even if the lower courts had found Omamos guilty.

The concept of chain of custody is central to drug-related cases in the Philippines. It refers to the documented and authorized movement and custody of seized drugs, from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court. This process ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence, preventing tampering, substitution, or contamination. The law emphasizes meticulous record-keeping, detailing who handled the evidence, when they handled it, and what they did with it. Any break in this chain can cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence and potentially jeopardize a conviction.

Section 21 of Republic Act 9165 (RA 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, outlines specific procedures for handling seized drugs. This provision requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These individuals must sign the inventory, and they are entitled to a copy. These requirements aim to provide transparency and accountability in the handling of drug evidence, reducing the risk of abuse or error.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 further elaborate on these procedures. It specifies that the inventory and photography should be conducted at the place of seizure, the nearest police station, or the nearest office of the apprehending team, whichever is practicable. The IRR also includes a proviso that non-compliance with these requirements may be excused under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. This “saving clause” allows for some flexibility in cases where strict compliance is not feasible, but it places a heavy burden on the prosecution to demonstrate that the integrity of the evidence was maintained despite the deviations.

The Supreme Court in People v. Hementiza, reiterated the four critical links in the chain of custody that must be established. First, the seizure and marking of the dangerous drug by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the drug to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist; and fourth, the submission of the marked drug from the forensic chemist to the court. Each of these links represents a crucial step in preserving the integrity of the evidence, and the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that each step was properly executed.

In the Omamos case, the Supreme Court found significant deficiencies in the prosecution’s handling of the drug evidence, particularly in the first and fourth links of the chain of custody. The arresting officer, PO3 Manuel Pacampara, admitted that he marked the seized marijuana at the police station, not at the place of arrest. Moreover, there was no evidence presented that Omamos was present during the marking. The court emphasized that marking after seizure is a critical step in the custodial link, as it serves to identify the evidence and prevent substitution or contamination. The failure to mark the drugs immediately at the scene of the arrest, and in the presence of the accused, raised serious doubts about whether the marijuana leaves bought by the poseur-buyer were indeed the same ones analyzed in the Chemistry Report.

The Court also noted the lack of compliance with the inventory and photography requirements. PO3 Pacampara was evasive when questioned about whether an inventory was prepared, and he admitted that he was unable to secure printouts of the photographs taken. The prosecution failed to present any evidence of the required inventory and photography, nor did they offer any explanation for their absence. This failure to document the seizure and handling of the drugs further undermined the integrity of the evidence.

Regarding the fourth link, the testimony of PSI Salvacion, the forensic chemist, was dispensed with because the defense admitted her proposed testimony. However, the Court noted that her proposed testimony only covered her findings on the drug sample submitted by PO3 Pacampara and did not discuss how she handled the drug from the time she received it until it was presented in court. She also did not describe the method she used in analyzing the chemical composition of the drug sample. This lack of detail regarding the handling and analysis of the drug raised further concerns about the integrity of the evidence.

The Supreme Court concluded that these lapses in the chain of custody rule cast serious doubts on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. Because the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the drug presented in court was the same drug seized from Omamos, the Court acquitted him. The Court emphasized that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect and unbroken, deviations may be excused if the prosecution can demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. However, in this case, the arresting officers failed to offer any explanation for their failure to comply with the chain of custody rule.

The Court also addressed the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, which is often invoked by law enforcement officers. The Court clarified that this presumption arises only when the records do not indicate any irregularity or flaw in the performance of official duty. When there is a clear showing that the apprehending officers unjustifiably failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR, the prosecution cannot rely on the presumption. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity cannot be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

The Omamos case underscores the importance of strict adherence to chain of custody procedures in drug-related cases. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement officers that they must meticulously follow the requirements of RA 9165 and its IRR to ensure the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused. Failure to do so can result in the suppression of evidence and the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the strength of other evidence against them.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the police followed the chain of custody procedures properly, ensuring the integrity of the drug evidence presented against the accused. The court focused on whether the gaps in the chain of custody warranted reasonable doubt and acquittal.
What is chain of custody?	Chain of custody refers to the documented process of tracking evidence from the time of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures that the evidence has not been tampered with, substituted, or contaminated.
What does RA 9165 say about chain of custody?	RA 9165, particularly Section 21, outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs, including physical inventory, photography, and the presence of specific witnesses. These steps are designed to maintain the integrity of the evidence.
Why is marking evidence at the place of arrest important?	Marking evidence immediately at the place of arrest helps to establish the identity of the seized items and prevents any potential for substitution or alteration. It is a crucial step in preserving the integrity of the chain of custody.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items may be compromised. This can lead to the suppression of evidence and the acquittal of the accused, as it raises reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the evidence.
What is the role of the forensic chemist in the chain of custody?	The forensic chemist plays a crucial role by analyzing the seized drug samples and providing expert testimony on their composition. Their testimony must cover the handling and analysis of the drug, from receipt to presentation in court.
What is the presumption of regularity?	The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes public officials perform their duties properly. However, this presumption does not apply if there is evidence of irregularity or non-compliance with established procedures, such as the chain of custody.
What is the saving clause in the IRR of RA 9165?	The saving clause allows for some flexibility in complying with chain of custody requirements under justifiable grounds. However, the prosecution must prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved despite the deviations.

The People v. Omamos case reinforces the critical importance of adhering to proper procedures in drug-related cases to protect individual rights. The decision serves as a warning to law enforcement agencies that failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements can have serious consequences, including the acquittal of the accused. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores that strict adherence to these procedures is not merely a technicality, but a fundamental safeguard against wrongful convictions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

July 10, 2019

Chain of Custody and Drug Cases: Integrity of Evidence in Philippine Law

In a ruling that reinforces the stringent requirements for drug-related convictions, the Supreme Court affirmed the importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized narcotics. The Court emphasized that even if standard procedures are not strictly followed, the integrity of the evidence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This case highlights the critical role of forensic chemists in preserving the integrity of drug evidence and the necessity of meticulous documentation throughout the handling process, ensuring that justice is served based on reliable and untainted evidence.

Buy-Bust and Broken Chains: Did the Prosecution Prove its Case Beyond Doubt?

This case, People of the Philippines v. Catherine Romorosa y Ostoy, revolves around the conviction of Catherine Romorosa for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The prosecution presented evidence from a buy-bust operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), leading to Romorosa’s arrest and subsequent conviction. At the heart of Romorosa’s appeal was the claim that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized shabu, thus casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence. The defense argued that the failure of the forensic chemist to turn over the evidence to the evidence custodian violated standard NBI procedure and undermined the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the appeal, asserting that the prosecution adequately demonstrated the integrity of the evidence. The Court emphasized that while adherence to standard procedures is crucial, the primary concern is whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. It meticulously analyzed the testimony and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, focusing particularly on the role of the forensic chemist, Senior Forensic Chemist Edwin C. Purificando (SFC Purificando) of the NBI, and Special Investigator Rolan Fernandez (SI Fernandez), the poseur buyer during the buy-bust operation.

In its decision, the Court referenced People v. Kamad, a landmark case that delineates the essential links in establishing an unbroken chain of custody:

x x x: 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 by the forensic chemist to the court.

The Court found that SI Fernandez and SFC Purificando’s testimonies, along with the prosecution’s evidence, covered all essential links in Kamad. After the buy-bust operation, SI Fernandez took possession of the plastic sachets sold by Romorosa, marking them for identification. Due to safety concerns, the markings, inventory, and photograph-taking were conducted at the NBI office. SI Fernandez then forwarded the marked sachets to SI Regalario, who prepared the inventory. Photographs of Romorosa with the marked sachets were also taken. The NBI also contacted barangay officials as well as the Department of Justice (DOJ) for them to send representatives to witness such inventory and photograph taking. However, none came.

The marked sachets were subsequently submitted to SFC Purificando for laboratory examination, which confirmed the presence of shabu. SFC Purificando retained custody of the sachets in a steel cabinet until he was summoned to produce them in court. The defense argued that SFC Purificando’s failure to turn over the evidence to an “evidence custodian” cast doubt on its integrity. The Court, however, disagreed. While it acknowledged that deviation from standard procedure occurred, it emphasized that the foremost consideration is whether the drug’s integrity was compromised. The Court stated:

From the perspective of case law, on the other hand, it would seem that — for the purpose of establishing the chain of custody over an illegal drug — a direct submission of such drug from the forensic chemist to the court may be allowed. If we may remember, in the Kamad case cited above, the submission of the seized illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court was recognized as the last link needed to complete an unbroken chain of custody over such drug.

The Court emphasized that the law does not mandate a specific intermediary between the forensic chemist and the court. Direct submission by the chemist is permissible, provided the drug’s integrity is maintained. The Court found ample evidence that SFC Purificando took adequate precautions to protect the shabu from contamination or substitution. SFC Purificando testified that he kept the evidence in a secure steel cabinet in his office, accessible only to him. He further testified that the security seals and markings on the sachets remained intact, assuring the court that the substance was never altered or adulterated while under his custody.

Building on this principle, the Court also addressed the alleged inconsistencies in SI Fernandez’s testimony. The defense argued that SI Fernandez gave inconsistent accounts of how the drug deal was brokered, undermining his credibility. Specifically, the defense pointed to a discrepancy between SI Fernandez’s testimony, where he stated that the confidential informant (CI) arranged the deal, and the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, which stated that SI Fernandez “closed the deal.”

The Court, however, clarified that the affidavit referred to SI Fernandez closing the deal during the buy-bust operation itself, implying that he consummated the sale pre-arranged by the CI. The Court elaborated on the context in which such statement is made, would show that there is really no inconsistency between it and the testimony of SI Fernandez, thus:

As can be seen, the affidavit referenced to SI Fernandez as being able to “close a deal” for the purchase of shabu during the conduct of the buy-bust operation itself. This implies that the affidavit’s use of the phrase “close a deal” was not to connote that it was SI Fernandez who contacted Omar and made prior arrangements for the sale of shabu in Alabang. Rather, the phrase was used in the sense that it was only SI Fernandez who was able to consummate the sale of shabu which had been pre-arranged by the CI.

Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the appellant’s denial could not overcome the affirmative testimonies of law enforcement officers, whose credibility remained intact. This decision underscores the critical importance of establishing a clear and unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs, but also emphasizes that strict adherence to standard procedures is not the sole determinant of the evidence’s integrity. The Court’s emphasis on the forensic chemist’s role and the meticulous preservation of evidence provides valuable guidance for law enforcement and legal professionals involved in drug-related cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the prosecution successfully proved an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, despite the forensic chemist’s failure to turn over the evidence to an evidence custodian before submitting it to the court.
What is the significance of the “chain of custody” in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the chronological documentation of the handling of evidence, ensuring its integrity and preventing contamination or substitution. Establishing an unbroken chain is crucial for proving that the evidence presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused.
Did the Supreme Court find any inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that the alleged inconsistencies in SI Fernandez’s testimony were more imagined than real. The Court explained that the phrase “close a deal” in the affidavit referred to the consummation of the sale during the buy-bust operation, not the initial arrangement of the drug deal.
Why did the forensic chemist directly submit the evidence to the court?	The forensic chemist directly submitted the evidence to the court because there is no specific law requiring an intermediary between the chemist and the court. The Supreme Court found this acceptable as long as the integrity of the evidence was maintained.
What security measures did the forensic chemist take to preserve the integrity of the evidence?	The forensic chemist testified that he stored the evidence in a secure steel cabinet in his office, accessible only to him. He also confirmed that the security seals and markings on the sachets remained intact, ensuring that the substance was not altered or adulterated while in his custody.
What was the appellant’s defense in this case?	The appellant denied being caught selling shabu and claimed that she was a victim of a police frame-up. However, the Court found her denial insufficient to overcome the affirmative testimonies of the law enforcement officers.
What is the implication of this ruling for future drug cases?	This ruling reinforces the importance of establishing a clear chain of custody for seized drugs but also clarifies that strict adherence to standard procedures is not the sole determinant of the evidence’s integrity. The focus is on whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved.
What is the penalty for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165?	The penalty is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00).

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Catherine Romorosa y Ostoy underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases. By focusing on the substance of the chain of custody rather than mere procedural compliance, the Court has provided clarity and guidance for future cases involving the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of meticulous documentation and secure handling of evidence to uphold justice and protect the rights of all parties involved.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

April 10, 2019

Chains of Custody: Safeguarding Drug Evidence in Philippine Law

In the Philippines, convictions for drug offenses hinge on meticulously preserving the integrity of drug evidence. The Supreme Court, in People v. Romorosa, reiterated that an unbroken chain of custody is vital in drug cases. This means that every transfer of evidence, from seizure to court presentation, must be documented. The court emphasized that even if standard procedures are not strictly followed, the evidence remains valid if its integrity is demonstrably maintained, ensuring reliable convictions and protecting the rights of the accused.

When Does Deviating from Standard Drug Evidence Handling Procedures Affect a Conviction?

The case of People of the Philippines v. Catherine Romorosa y Ostoy revolves around the appellant’s conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Romorosa was apprehended during a buy-bust operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The central legal question is whether the failure to strictly adhere to standard evidence handling procedures, specifically the non-transfer of seized drugs to an evidence custodian, compromises the integrity of the evidence and warrants an acquittal. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the conviction, clarifying the extent to which procedural deviations affect the admissibility of drug evidence.

The prosecution presented evidence that a confidential informant arranged a drug deal between SI Fernandez and Omar, leading to a buy-bust operation where Romorosa was caught selling shabu. The defense challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative, citing inconsistencies in SI Fernandez’s testimony and questioning the chain of custody of the seized drugs. Romorosa argued that the drugs presented in court were not reliably identified because they were kept by the forensic chemist, SFC Purificando, rather than being turned over to an evidence custodian, allegedly violating NBI’s standard procedure. This raises questions about the reliability of the process.

The Supreme Court, however, found no significant inconsistencies in the testimony of SI Fernandez. The Court clarified that the apparent contradiction in Fernandez’s affidavit was a matter of semantics, not a fundamental discrepancy in the events described. The Court stated:

As can be seen, the affidavit referenced to SI Fernandez as being able to “close a deal” for the purchase of shabu during the conduct of the buy-bust operation itself. This implies that the affidavit’s use of the phrase “close a deal” was not to connote that it was SI Fernandez who contacted Omar and made prior arrangements for the sale of shabu in Alabang. Rather, the phrase was used in the sense that it was only SI Fernandez who was able to consummate the sale of shabu which had been pre-arranged by the CI.

Building on this principle, the Court addressed the issue of the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Court referred to its prior ruling in People v. Kamad, elucidating that the essential links in the chain of custody are:

x x x: 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 by the forensic chemist to the court.

The Court found that these links were adequately established in Romorosa’s case. SI Fernandez took possession of the drugs, marked them appropriately, and ensured they were inventoried and photographed. The drugs were then submitted to SFC Purificando, who confirmed their identity as shabu. Purificando stored the drugs in a secure steel cabinet until their presentation in court. The key aspect here is maintaining the integrity of the evidence.

The Court then addressed the appellant’s argument that the forensic chemist’s failure to turn over the drugs to an evidence custodian compromised the chain of custody. It emphasized that neither the law nor jurisprudence mandates any specific intermediary between the forensic chemist and the court. The main concern is whether the integrity of the evidence was maintained throughout the process. Since there was ample evidence that SFC Purificando took proper precautions to safeguard the drugs, the Court concluded that the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the integrity of the drug presented to the court is paramount. The Court noted that there was enough evidence to prove that the integrity of the shabu examined was protected from any possibility of contamination or substitution while in his custody. The Court stated:

In view of the foregoing, We are satisfied that the corpus delicti of the offense charged against the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to proper evidence handling procedures but recognizes that the ultimate concern is maintaining the integrity and identity of the drug evidence. The Court’s decision affirms that strict compliance with every procedural step is not always necessary if the prosecution can demonstrate that the integrity of the evidence was preserved throughout the process. This decision has significant implications for drug-related prosecutions in the Philippines, emphasizing the balance between procedural rigor and substantive justice.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the failure to turn over seized drugs to an evidence custodian compromised the integrity of the evidence, thereby warranting an acquittal. The Court focused on whether the integrity of the evidence was maintained regardless of the deviation.
What is the chain of custody in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers of drug evidence, from seizure to presentation in court, each transfer being documented to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The links include seizure, marking, turnover to investigating officer, turnover to forensic chemist, and submission to the court.
Why is the chain of custody important?	It is essential to preserve the integrity and identity of the drug evidence, preventing contamination, alteration, or substitution. A broken chain of custody can raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence, affecting the outcome of the case.
What did the forensic chemist do in this case?	The forensic chemist, SFC Purificando, examined the seized substances, confirmed they were shabu, and kept them in a locked steel cabinet in his office until he presented them in court. The court found this acceptable because it ensured the integrity of the drugs.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, the admissibility and credibility of the drug evidence may be challenged. The prosecution must then provide sufficient justification to assure the court that the integrity of the evidence was not compromised.
Was there a violation of procedure in this case?	Yes, there was a deviation from the standard procedure because the drugs were not turned over to an evidence custodian. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this deviation did not automatically invalidate the evidence because its integrity was maintained.
What is the significance of this case?	This case clarifies that while adherence to standard procedures is crucial, the primary concern is preserving the integrity of the drug evidence. It provides guidance on how courts should assess the impact of procedural lapses in drug cases.
What is “corpus delicti”?	Corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, which in drug cases means proving that the seized substance is indeed an illegal drug. It is a fundamental element that the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Romorosa underscores the need for law enforcement to follow proper evidence handling procedures while recognizing that the ultimate goal is to maintain the integrity of drug evidence. This ruling offers valuable guidance on how to strike a balance between procedural adherence and substantive justice, ensuring reliable convictions in drug-related offenses.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MOHAMAD DAMPAK Y DISALO @ “LANDO” AND JAMIL DAMPAK Y MIMBALAWAG @ “JAMIL,” ACCUSED. CATHERINE ROMOROSA Y OSTOY @ “LYN,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 237209, April 10, 2019

April 10, 2019

Chain of Custody is Key: Acquittal in Drug Cases Due to Procedural Lapses

In People v. Michael Cabuhay, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, Michael Cabuhay, of illegal drug sale charges due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. The Court emphasized that strict adherence to procedural requirements under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, particularly Section 21 concerning the handling of confiscated drugs, is crucial. This ruling underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity and identity of the seized drugs to ensure a fair trial and protect the rights of the accused, setting a precedent for similar drug-related cases.

Cracks in the Chain: When Drug Evidence Fails Scrutiny

Michael Cabuhay was charged with violating Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that Cabuhay sold 0.04 grams of shabu to a police officer during a buy-bust operation. Additionally, he was found to possess another 0.04 grams of shabu. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Cabuhay for illegal sale but acquitted him of illegal possession, a decision partially affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Dissatisfied, Cabuhay appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the integrity of the evidence and the validity of his conviction.

At the heart of this case lies the **chain of custody rule**, a critical concept in drug-related prosecutions. The Supreme Court reiterated that the chain of custody is essential to preserve the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, which constitute the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. As the Court stated in People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017:

In prosecutions under the law on dangerous drugs, the illegal drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. As the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, its identity and integrity must definitely be shown to have been preserved.

This rule mandates a meticulous record of every link in the chain, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It requires testimony from each person who handled the evidence, detailing how it was received, stored, and transferred. This ensures that the evidence presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused, free from tampering or substitution. The chain of custody’s integrity ensures that the accused is properly convicted and that the evidence against him is the same evidence seized from him.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 outlines specific procedures for handling confiscated drugs. It requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These individuals must sign the inventory, and copies must be provided. In this case, the Supreme Court found that these mandatory requirements were not met. The inventory lacked the signatures of the accused or their counsel, representatives from the media, the DOJ, or an elected public official. Furthermore, no photographs of the seized drugs were presented, violating the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

The prosecution’s failure to comply with Section 21 raised serious doubts about the integrity of the shabu allegedly seized from Cabuhay. While the Court acknowledges that strict compliance with Section 21 is not always required, deviations must be justified. As elucidated in People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 208095, 20 September 2017, liberality is only extended when justifiable grounds for non-observance are presented.

In this instance, no such justification was offered, leading the Court to conclude that the procedural lapses undermined the integrity of the evidence. The Court also addressed the stipulations regarding the forensic chemist’s testimony. While stipulations can expedite proceedings, they must adequately cover the essential steps taken to preserve the integrity of the seized item. In People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011), the Court clarified that a proper stipulation must include assurances that the forensic chemist received the article as marked, properly sealed, and intact, resealed it after examination, and placed their own markings on it.

The stipulations in Cabuhay’s case fell short of these requirements. While they confirmed the forensic chemist’s expertise and the positive result for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, they failed to address the precautions taken after the laboratory examination. This omission left a gap in the chain of custody, as it did not establish that the drug presented in court was the same one examined by the chemist. This gap, as emphasized in People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214-245 (2008), is critical because it leaves room for doubt about the integrity of the evidence. This is why, the failure to include the precautions taken by the forensic chemist after the conduct of the laboratory examination on the illegal drug, as well as the manner it was handled after it left her custody, renders the stipulations in her testimony ineffective in completing an unbroken chain of custody.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of these stipulations, combined with the violations of Section 21, created reasonable doubt about Cabuhay’s guilt. This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to strictly adhere to the procedural requirements in handling drug evidence. Failure to do so can result in the acquittal of the accused, regardless of the other evidence presented. It also underscores the importance of a comprehensive legal defense that scrutinizes every aspect of the prosecution’s case, particularly the chain of custody.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, ensuring the integrity and identity of the evidence presented against the accused.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires a meticulous record of every person who handled the evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, to ensure it has not been tampered with or substituted. This includes details on how the evidence was received, stored, and transferred.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	Section 21 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official, all of whom must sign the inventory.
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Failure to comply with Section 21 raises doubts about the integrity of the seized drugs and can lead to the acquittal of the accused, especially if no justifiable grounds for non-compliance are presented.
What stipulations are necessary when dispensing with the forensic chemist’s testimony?	The stipulations must include assurances that the forensic chemist received the article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; resealed it after examination; and placed their own markings on it.
Why are these stipulations important?	These stipulations are important to ensure that the drug presented in court is the same one examined by the chemist and that there was no opportunity for tampering or substitution.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court acquitted Michael Cabuhay due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody and to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in handling drug evidence and serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to comply with the law to ensure fair trials.

The People v. Michael Cabuhay case highlights the critical role of procedural compliance in drug-related prosecutions. Law enforcement’s failure to diligently adhere to the chain of custody requirements and the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 can result in the acquittal of the accused, regardless of other evidence presented. This ruling reinforces the need for stringent evidence handling practices to safeguard the rights of the accused and ensure the integrity of the justice system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MICHAEL CABUHAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT, G.R. No. 225590, July 23, 2018

July 23, 2018

Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: Ensuring Integrity of Evidence in Philippine Law

In illegal drug cases, the integrity of the evidence is paramount. The Supreme Court held in this case that while strict adherence to the chain of custody rule outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) is preferred, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. This ruling underscores the importance of proving that the substance presented in court is the same one confiscated from the accused, safeguarding against potential abuse and ensuring fair trials.

From Buy-Bust to Bust: How a Marijuana Case Hinged on Evidence Handling

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Michael Ros y Ortega, Rodolfo Justo, Jr. y Califlores, and David Navarro y Minas arose from two separate buy-bust operations conducted by the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Team (PAID-SOT) in Laoag City. Acting on information, the police operatives first targeted David Navarro and Michael Ros, allegedly selling a kilogram of marijuana. Shortly after, they conducted another operation against Rodolfo Justo, Jr., for selling a smaller quantity of the same drug. The three individuals were subsequently charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which prohibits the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals.

At trial, the prosecution presented evidence detailing the buy-bust operations, the arrest of the appellants, and the laboratory examination confirming that the seized substances were indeed marijuana. The defense, on the other hand, denied the charges, claiming inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers and raising doubts about the integrity of the evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the appellants, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where the primary issue revolved around whether the prosecution had successfully established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized marijuana, as required by law.

The appellants anchored their appeal on the argument that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the seized marijuana, citing alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of R.A. No. 9165. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, specifying the immediate inventory and photographing of the drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official.

However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 clarify that non-compliance with these requirements does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the items, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court also acknowledged that an ideal chain of custody is often impossible to achieve in reality, stating that:

While the chain of custody should ideally be perfect and unbroken, it is not in reality “as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.”

The Supreme Court reiterated that the primary concern is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, as they constitute the corpus delicti of the crime. The Court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish a substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure, ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana.

The evidence showed that after the buy-bust operations, the police operatives immediately brought the appellants and the seized marijuana to Camp Captain Valentin S. Juan for investigation. The confiscated illegal drugs were segregated, inventoried, marked, kept, and delivered to the forensic chemist by the same officers who received them from the appellants. The poseur-buyers, PO1 Jonie Domingo and PO3 Marlon Nicolas, made the identifying marks on the marijuana seized from the possession of the appellants. On the same day, they personally delivered the illegal drugs to the Ilocos Norte Police Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. These procedures ensured the proper handling of the evidence.

Importantly, the Court noted that the appellants failed to raise the issue of chain of custody with specificity during the trial. They did not question the handling and safekeeping of the seized marijuana in a timely manner, thus failing to provide the prosecution an opportunity to present evidence to address any alleged lapses. This procedural lapse proved fatal to their defense. As the Court pointed out:

The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds that may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation x x x from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him.

The Supreme Court also highlighted the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers, stating that the appellants had the burden of proof to overcome this presumption. The appellants failed to present any evidence of bad faith, ill will, or tampering with the evidence on the part of the police officers. Since the appellants did not show any improper motive on the part of the police officers, their testimonies regarding the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were given full faith and credit.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that objections to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court has held that when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, they must state this objection. Without such objection, they cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. The appellants’ failure to question the admissibility of the evidence at the trial court level precluded them from raising it on appeal.

In this case, the requirements for a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were met. The prosecution had proved the elements of the crime and had demonstrated an adequate chain of custody of the illegal drugs, which is the corpus delicti of the offense. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of the appellants for illegal sale of marijuana.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved an unbroken chain of custody of the seized marijuana, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The appellants argued that the prosecution’s failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirements invalidated the seizure and rendered the evidence inadmissible.
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?	The chain of custody rule refers to the chronological documentation and tracking of seized evidence to ensure its integrity and authenticity. It requires that the seized items are properly identified, marked, stored, and transported to prevent tampering or substitution.
Does non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 automatically invalidate a drug conviction?	No, non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate a drug conviction. The Supreme Court has held that as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, the seizure remains valid, even if there are deviations from the prescribed procedure.
*What is the significance of the corpus delicti* in drug cases?**	The corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, is the actual substance of the illegal drug involved in the case. It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the substance presented in court is the same one that was seized from the accused, thus establishing the commission of the crime.
When should an accused question the chain of custody of evidence?	An accused should question the chain of custody of evidence during the trial, at the earliest opportunity. Failure to raise this issue during trial may preclude the accused from raising it on appeal, as objections to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
What is the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties?	The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes public officials, including police officers, have performed their duties properly and in accordance with the law. The burden of proof lies with the party challenging the regularity of the official’s actions.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, it may cast doubt on the integrity and authenticity of the evidence. The court will then assess whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to overcome this doubt and establish that the evidence is still reliable.
What is the role of the forensic chemist in drug cases?	The forensic chemist plays a crucial role in drug cases by conducting laboratory examinations to determine the composition and identity of the seized substance. Their findings are used to confirm whether the substance is indeed an illegal drug.

This case underscores the critical importance of meticulously documenting and preserving the chain of custody in drug-related offenses to safeguard the integrity of evidence. While adherence to the prescribed procedures is paramount, the ultimate focus remains on ensuring that the substance presented in court is indeed the one seized from the accused, thereby upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the Philippine legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

April 15, 2015

Tag: Forensic Chemist

Acquittal Based on a Faulty Chain of Custody: Integrity of Evidence is Paramount

G.R. No. 246434, January 24, 2024

The Law on Chain of Custody: Safeguarding the Integrity of Evidence

Case Breakdown: Hernald Bermillo’s Journey to Acquittal

Practical Implications: What This Case Means for Drug Cases

Key Lessons

Frequently Asked Questions

Breaking the Chain: When Doubt Acquits in Drug Cases

FAQs

Missing Links: When Doubt Triumphs Over Presumption in Drug Cases

FAQs

When Procedural Lapses Undermine Drug Convictions: A Chain of Custody Breakdown

FAQs

Broken Chains: When Drug Evidence Fails Scrutiny

FAQs

Flawed Evidence: Can Justice Prevail When Drug Handling Fails?

FAQs

Buy-Bust and Broken Chains: Did the Prosecution Prove its Case Beyond Doubt?

FAQs

When Does Deviating from Standard Drug Evidence Handling Procedures Affect a Conviction?

FAQs

Cracks in the Chain: When Drug Evidence Fails Scrutiny

FAQs

From Buy-Bust to Bust: How a Marijuana Case Hinged on Evidence Handling

FAQs