Chain of Custody

A review of the records establishes that the aforestated procedure laid down by Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR was not followed. Several lapses on the part of the buy-bust team are readily apparent. To start with, no photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Secondly, the buy-bust team did not immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime and in the presence of Relato and witnesses. Thirdly, although there was testimony about the marking of the seized items being made at the police station, the records do not show that the marking was done in the presence of Relato or his chosen representative. And, fourthly, no representative of the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official attended the taking of the physical inventory and to sign the inventory.

While the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR provides a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of non-compliance irreversibly prejudices the State’s evidence, it is significant to note that the application of the saving mechanism to a situation is expressly conditioned upon the State rendering an explanation of the lapse or lapses in the compliance with the procedures.¹³ Here, however, the Prosecution tendered no explanation why the buy-bust team had failed to mark the seized shabu immediately after the arrest. Nevertheless, even assuming that marking the shabu at the scene of the crime by the buy-bust team had not been practical or possible for the buy-bust team to do, the saving mechanism would still not be applicable due to the lack of a credible showing of any effort undertaken by the buy-bust team to keep the shabu intact while in transit to the police station (People of the Philippines Vs. Darwin Relato y Ajero, G.R. No. 173794. January 18, 2012).