Lawyerly

GR No. 186455

2014-11-19

BRION, J.

It bears noting that SPO2 Ancheta was already the third person (after Armando and SPO1 Balolong) to get hold of the seized shabu from the time it was allegedly sold by the appellant to the poseur-buyer. While marking at the police station is permissible following our ruing in People v. Resurreccion,[26] we express doubts whether the seized sachet had really been marked, and if so, whether the marked shabu was the same shabu taken from the appellant and eventually presented in court.

GR No. 206366

2014-08-13

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO BALAQUIT Y BALDERAMA

PEREZ, J.

Contrary to appellant's assertion, the failure by PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman to mark the seized shabu immediately at the place where the buy-bust was conducted will not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody so established. Strictly speaking, marking the seized contraband at the nearest police station, rather than at the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted, is not even a violation of the procedure set forth in Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Thus, in People v. Resurreccion,[24] this Court explained: Accused-appellant broaches the view that SA Isidoro's failure to mark the confiscated shabu immediately after seizure creates a reasonable doubt as to the drug's identity. People v. Sanchez,[25] however, explains that RA 9165 does not specify a time frame for "immediate marking," or where said marking should be done:

GR No. 191727

2014-03-31

PEOPLE v. MANUEL APLAT Y SUBLINO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Be that as it may, the fact that the inventory and marking of the subject item were not made onsite is of no moment and will not lead to appellant's exoneration. From a cursory reading of Section 21(a)[25] of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, it can be gleaned that in cases of warrantless seizures, as in this case, inventory and marking of the seized item can be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending authorities, whichever is practicable, and not necessarily at the place of seizure. As held in People v. Resurreccion,[26] "marking upon immediate confiscation" does not exclude the possibility that marking can be done at the police station or office of the apprehending team.[27] Thus, in the present case, the apprehending team cannot be faulted if the inventory and marking were done at their office where appellant was immediately brought for custody and further investigation.

GR No. 188653

2014-01-29

LITO LOPEZ v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

There are occasions when the chain of custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases.[21] However, even a less-than-stringent application of the requirement would not suffice to sustain the conviction in this case. There was no categorical statement from any of the prosecution witnesses that markings were made, much less immediately upon confiscation of the seized items. There was also no showing that markings were made in the presence of the accused in this case.

GR No. 201156

2014-01-29

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO MORATE Y TARNATE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The seizure and confiscation of the prohibited drugs from the accused-appellant was a warrantless seizure resulting from a buy-bust. The law, as carried out by its implementing rules and regulations expressly authorizes the taking of the inventory of the seized contraband "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable," in case of warrantless seizure. Thus, this Court has ruled that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.[36] In this light, the marking and inventory of the seized items at the police station immediately after the arrival thereat of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation was in accordance with the law, its implementing rules and regulations, and relevant jurisprudence.

GR No. 198318

2013-11-27

PEOPLE v. ASIR GANI Y ALIH

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Jurisprudence has decreed that, in dangerous drugs cases, the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory and to photograph the sachets of shabu, as well as to mark the sachets at the place of arrest, do not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence or automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody of the said drugs.[29] 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.[30]

GR No. 196966

2013-10-23

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL MAONGCO Y YUMONDA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The Court disagrees with accused-appellants as the police officers had substantially complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court had previously held that in dangerous drugs cases, the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory, to photograph, and to mark the seized drugs at the place of arrest do not render said drugs inadmissible in evidence or automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody of the same.[34] The Court had further clarified, in relation to the requirement of marking the drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation," that the marking may be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of the accused and that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of its integrity and evidentiary value.[35]

GR No. 185383

2013-09-25

PEOPLE v. GIOVANNI OCFEMIA Y CHAVEZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Jurisprudence has already decreed that the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory, to photograph, and to mark the shabu at the place of arrest do not automatically render it inadmissible in evidence or impair the integrity of the chain of its custody.[26] Of particular significance to the present case is the following discussion of the Court on Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 in People v. Resurreccion[27]:Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.

GR No. 180514

2013-04-17

PEOPLE v. DANTE L. DUMALAG

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It has already been settled that the failure of police officers to mark the items seized from an accused in illegal drugs cases immediately upon its confiscation at the place of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence.[41] In People v. Resurreccion,[42] the Court explained that "marking" of the seized items "immediately after seizure and confiscation" may be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. It was further emphasized that 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. The Court elaborated in this wise: Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.

GR No. 193003

2011-07-13

FRANCISCO IMSON Y ADRIANO v. PEOPLE

CARPIO, J.

Likewise, the failure of the policemen to mark the two plastic sachets containing shabu at the place of arrest does not render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. In People v. Resurreccion,[10] the Court held that the failure of the policemen to immediately mark the confiscated items does not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody. The Court held: Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.

GR No. 188608

2011-02-09

PEOPLE v. RONALDO MORALES Y FLORES

PEREZ, J.

In People v. Resurreccion,[30] this Court reiterates that failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[31]

GR No. 172971

2010-06-16

PEOPLE v. SITTI DOMADO

BRION, J.

From the point of view of jurisprudence, we are not beating any new path by holding that the failure to undertake the required photography and immediate marking of seized items may be excused by the unique circumstances of a case. In People v. Resurreccion,[50] we already stated that "marking upon immediate confiscation" does not exclude the possibility that marking can be at the police station or office of the apprehending team. In the cases of People v. Rusiana,[51] People v. Hernandez,[52] and People v. Gum-Oyen,[53] the apprehending team marked the confiscated items at the police station and not at the place of seizure. Nevertheless, we sustained the conviction because the evidence showed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized had been preserved. To reiterate what we have held in past cases, we are not always looking for the strict step-by-step adherence to the procedural requirements; what is important is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. We succinctly explained this in People v. Del Monte[54] when we held: We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will [be] accorded it by the courts. x x x

	GR No. 186455 2014-11-19	PEOPLE v. ROSALINDA CASABUENA BRION, J.
It bears noting that SPO2 Ancheta was already the third person (after Armando and SPO1 Balolong) to get hold of the seized shabu from the time it was allegedly sold by the appellant to the poseur-buyer. While marking at the police station is permissible following our ruing in People v. Resurreccion,[26] we express doubts whether the seized sachet had really been marked, and if so, whether the marked shabu was the same shabu taken from the appellant and eventually presented in court.
	GR No. 206366 2014-08-13	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO BALAQUIT Y BALDERAMA PEREZ, J.
Contrary to appellant's assertion, the failure by PO3 Espiritu and SPO1 Daraman to mark the seized shabu immediately at the place where the buy-bust was conducted will not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody so established. Strictly speaking, marking the seized contraband at the nearest police station, rather than at the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted, is not even a violation of the procedure set forth in Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Thus, in People v. Resurreccion,[24] this Court explained: Accused-appellant broaches the view that SA Isidoro's failure to mark the confiscated shabu immediately after seizure creates a reasonable doubt as to the drug's identity. People v. Sanchez,[25] however, explains that RA 9165 does not specify a time frame for "immediate marking," or where said marking should be done:
	GR No. 191727 2014-03-31	PEOPLE v. MANUEL APLAT Y SUBLINO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Be that as it may, the fact that the inventory and marking of the subject item were not made onsite is of no moment and will not lead to appellant's exoneration. From a cursory reading of Section 21(a)[25] of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, it can be gleaned that in cases of warrantless seizures, as in this case, inventory and marking of the seized item can be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending authorities, whichever is practicable, and not necessarily at the place of seizure. As held in People v. Resurreccion,[26] "marking upon immediate confiscation" does not exclude the possibility that marking can be done at the police station or office of the apprehending team.[27] Thus, in the present case, the apprehending team cannot be faulted if the inventory and marking were done at their office where appellant was immediately brought for custody and further investigation.
	GR No. 188653 2014-01-29	LITO LOPEZ v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
There are occasions when the chain of custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases.[21] However, even a less-than-stringent application of the requirement would not suffice to sustain the conviction in this case. There was no categorical statement from any of the prosecution witnesses that markings were made, much less immediately upon confiscation of the seized items. There was also no showing that markings were made in the presence of the accused in this case.
	GR No. 201156 2014-01-29	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO MORATE Y TARNATE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The seizure and confiscation of the prohibited drugs from the accused-appellant was a warrantless seizure resulting from a buy-bust. The law, as carried out by its implementing rules and regulations expressly authorizes the taking of the inventory of the seized contraband "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable," in case of warrantless seizure. Thus, this Court has ruled that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.[36] In this light, the marking and inventory of the seized items at the police station immediately after the arrival thereat of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation was in accordance with the law, its implementing rules and regulations, and relevant jurisprudence.
	GR No. 198318 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. ASIR GANI Y ALIH LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Jurisprudence has decreed that, in dangerous drugs cases, the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory and to photograph the sachets of shabu, as well as to mark the sachets at the place of arrest, do not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence or automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody of the said drugs.[29] 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.[30]
	GR No. 196966 2013-10-23	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL MAONGCO Y YUMONDA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court disagrees with accused-appellants as the police officers had substantially complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court had previously held that in dangerous drugs cases, the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory, to photograph, and to mark the seized drugs at the place of arrest do not render said drugs inadmissible in evidence or automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody of the same.[34] The Court had further clarified, in relation to the requirement of marking the drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation," that the marking may be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of the accused and that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of its integrity and evidentiary value.[35]
	GR No. 185383 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. GIOVANNI OCFEMIA Y CHAVEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Jurisprudence has already decreed that the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory, to photograph, and to mark the shabu at the place of arrest do not automatically render it inadmissible in evidence or impair the integrity of the chain of its custody.[26] Of particular significance to the present case is the following discussion of the Court on Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 in People v. Resurreccion[27]:Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.
	GR No. 180514 2013-04-17	PEOPLE v. DANTE L. DUMALAG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It has already been settled that the failure of police officers to mark the items seized from an accused in illegal drugs cases immediately upon its confiscation at the place of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence.[41] In People v. Resurreccion,[42] the Court explained that "marking" of the seized items "immediately after seizure and confiscation" may be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. It was further emphasized that 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. The Court elaborated in this wise: Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.
	GR No. 193003 2011-07-13	FRANCISCO IMSON Y ADRIANO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Likewise, the failure of the policemen to mark the two plastic sachets containing shabu at the place of arrest does not render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. In People v. Resurreccion,[10] the Court held that the failure of the policemen to immediately mark the confiscated items does not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody. The Court held: Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.
	GR No. 188608 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. RONALDO MORALES Y FLORES PEREZ, J.
In People v. Resurreccion,[30] this Court reiterates that failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[31]
	GR No. 172971 2010-06-16	PEOPLE v. SITTI DOMADO BRION, J.
From the point of view of jurisprudence, we are not beating any new path by holding that the failure to undertake the required photography and immediate marking of seized items may be excused by the unique circumstances of a case. In People v. Resurreccion,[50] we already stated that "marking upon immediate confiscation" does not exclude the possibility that marking can be at the police station or office of the apprehending team. In the cases of People v. Rusiana,[51] People v. Hernandez,[52] and People v. Gum-Oyen,[53] the apprehending team marked the confiscated items at the police station and not at the place of seizure. Nevertheless, we sustained the conviction because the evidence showed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized had been preserved. To reiterate what we have held in past cases, we are not always looking for the strict step-by-step adherence to the procedural requirements; what is important is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. We succinctly explained this in People v. Del Monte[54] when we held: We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will [be] accorded it by the courts. x x x

PEOPLE v. MANUEL RESURRECCION