The Rule on Chain of Custody as Decided in One Case by the Supreme Court.

“We were just selling star apples” – this was the alibi of the appellants before the court when they were required to show their version of the alleged pot session incident against them.

In this 2015 case (January 14, 2015), the Supreme Court decided a case concerning two appellants reported to have been engaged in a shabu pot session in Baranggay Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna.

On 29 March 2005, at around 6:00 in the evening, a confidential informant reported to SPO3 Melchor dela Peña (SPO3 Dela Peña) of the San Pedro Municipal Police Station, San Pedro, Laguna, that a pot session was taking place at the house of a certain “Obet” located at Barangay Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna. Upon receipt of the information, SPO3 Dela Peña formed a team to conduct police operations against the suspect. The team was composed of the confidential informant, PO2 Rommel Bautista (PO2 Bautista), PO3 Jay Parunggao (PO3 Parunggao), PO1 Jifford Signap and SPO3 Dela Peña as team leader.



At around 9:00PM, the team arrived at the target area. The house was not fenced, so PO2 Bautista approached the house and peeped through a small opening in the window. He saw four persons in a circle having a shabu pot session. The team proceeded inside the house, introduced themselves as police officers and arrested the four. Among those arrested were appellant Jeric Pavia, and Juan Buendia. They seized the shabu and other paraphernalias therein, marked the drugs and were transmitted to the crime laboratory for examination. Consequently, appellants were charged with violation of Section 13,Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs during Parties, Social Gatherings, or Meetings).

In defense, appellants provided a different version of the incident. According to them, on the questioned date and time, they were roaming the streets of Barangay Cuyab, selling star apples. A prospective buyer of the fruits called them over to his house and requested them to go inside, to which they acceded. When they were about to leave the house, several persons who introduced themselves as policemen arrived and invited appellants to go with them to the precinct. There, they were incarcerated and falsely charged with violation of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002.

The RTC found the appellants guilty of the crime. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.

The questions now raised before the Supreme Court are these;
1.The warrantless arrest was not valid.
2.The Chain of Custody of the drugs is defective.

The Supreme Court decided the following issues:
 "On the first issue, the Court held that the warrantless arrest is valid. Paragraph (a) of Section 5 is commonly known as an in flagrante delicto arrest. For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

After a careful evaluation of the evidence in its totality, we hold that the prosecution successfully established that the petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto. A warrant of arrest cannot be obtained immediately judging from the surrounding circumstances, as the pot session/ crime may well be done before the warrant be issued. The “time element” was considered here by the Court."

On the second issue concerning the Chain of Custody of the shabu, the Court admitted the evidences presented and stated there was no defect in the chain of custody of the shabu. The said evidences were presented before the Court, to which P02 Bautista positively identified as the shabu they confiscated. The appellants did not contest this.

The Court has this to say;
“What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the present case, we see substantial compliance by the police with the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items, thus showing that the integrity of the seized evidence was not compromised. We refer particularly to the succession of events established by evidence, to the overall handling of the seized items by specified individuals, to the test results obtained, under a situation where no objection to admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All these, to the unprejudiced mind, show that the evidence seized were the same evidence tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court”.

The Court then decided;
"WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 7 February 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04020 is AFFIRMED."

Read the original case:
People of the Philippines vs. Jeric Pavia Y Paliza and Juan Buendia Y Delos Reyes. G.R. No.202687 January 14,2015.