Chain of Custody; Photograph; Stipulation

That the defense admitted the existence of the Booking and Information Sheet (Exh. “C”), the Request for Laboratory Examination (Exh. “D”) and Physical Science Report No. D-1331-02 (Exh. “E”) during the pre-trial did not amount to an admission of the identity of the seized specimen. What the admissions proved were merely the existence and authenticity of the request for laboratory examination and the result of this examination, not the required chain of custody from the time of seizure of evidence. Simply put, the admission regarding the existence of Exhibits “C,” “D” and “E” has no bearing on the question of whether the specimen submitted for chemical analysis was the same as that seized from the appellant. To interpret the stipulations as an admission that the appellant was the source of the specimen would be contrary to the pre-trial order (stating that Exhibits “C”, “D” and “E” were admitted as to their existence only and not as to the source); it would also bind the appellant to an unceremonious withdrawal of his plea of not guilty.

In like manner, the stipulation during the pre-trial regarding the non-presentation of the forensic chemist, P/Insp. Gural, merely covers the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and the result of the examination, but not the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left his possession.

Prior to the passage of R.A. No. 9165, the Court applied the procedure required by Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, amending Board Regulation No. 7, Series of 1974. Section 1 of this Regulation requires the apprehending team, having initial custody and control of the seized drugs, to immediately inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused and/or his representatives, who shall be required to sign and be given copies of the inventory.

After the passage of R.A. No. 9165, the Court did not waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs were observed. In People v. Rosemarie R. Salonga, we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed the accused’s conviction in Gutierrez, for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made by the police.

We reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v. Erlinda Capuno y Tison, People v. Jay Lorena y Labag, and People v. Arnold Martinez y Angeles, et al.