c. Threefold Rule

Unbroken Chain of Custody is essential is the object is not distinct and not identifiable

Unbroken Chain of Custody is essential if the object is not distinct and not identifiable

While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit’s level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering – without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not – dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. (People v. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403, 2012)

Q: Accused X was charged and convicted of violation of Section 11, Article II or R.A. No. 9165. When the case was brought to the Supreme Court, X contended that there was an inconsistency in the testimony of police officer Y, one of the police officers present in the search. During the trial, police officer Y affirmed that during the conduct of the search, the barangay captain, DOJ representative Z, a representative from the media and one barangay kagawad were present. He also identified a series of photographs depicting the scenes during the implementation of the search warrant against X, and the affidavit he executed in connection with the case. As a defense, X stated that police officer Y’s affidavit neglected to categorically mention the presence of DOJ representative Z during the search operation and therefore is inconsistent with his testimony during the trial. This in turn places his conviction in doubt as it goes into the mandatory witness requirement under Section 21 of R.A. 9165. X was implying that the prosecution failed to establish compliance with the three-witness rule mandated by R.A. No. 9165. Should accused X’s conviction be sustained despite the inconsistencies between the testimonies and affidavit of the prosecution witnesses ?

A. Yes. Aside from the overwhelming documentary evidence establishing compliance with the procedure, the presence of Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Z was already admitted by police officer Y, when he stipulated on such matter during trial. The perceived discrepancy neither affects the truth of the testimony of the prosecution witness nor discredits his positive identification of appellant. Besides, apart from the duly signed Certificate of Inventory and Certificate of Orderly Search, it had already been stipulated and admitted by the parties that DOJ Representative Z was indeed a witness in the conduct of the search and inventory of the confiscated drugs. For this reason, such stipulation is already a judicial admission of the facts stipulated. X is clearly beyond his bearings in disputing this judicially admitted fact. What is more, photographs were offered in evidence to prove that the necessary witnesses, including DOJ Representative Z, had been present during the search operation. As the records present, the prosecution has proven that there was compliance with Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. (Concepcion y Tabor v. People, G.R. No. 243345, March 11, 2019.)

Second Element of Misappropriation or Conversion: Three ways of committing Estafa with Abuse of Confidence

• By misappropriating the thing received. Misappropriation means taking something for one’s own benefit.
• By converting the thing received. Conversion means using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own. The words “convert” and “misappropriate” connote an act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own or devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon.
• By denying that the thing was received.