1. Repealed. See instead Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165, Art. II, as amended by RA 10640; See also AM 18-03-16-SC)

Drug syndicate

It refers to any organized group of two (2) or more persons forming or joining together with the intention of committing any offense prescribed under this Act.

The fact of sale must be sufficiently established. It must be shown that the sale is consummated.

For a successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs around RA 9165, the following elements must be proven:

• the transaction or sale took place;
• the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and
• the buyer and the seller were identified. (People v. Buniag, G.R. No. 217661, June 26, 2019)

Violations of Chain Custody Rule

• Accused was not present during the photography of the seized items (People v. Cordova, 231130, 2018)
• None of the witnesses required by the applicable version of Sec. 21 were present during the physical inventory and photography of the seized items. The applicable witness requirements depend on the date of seizure. The inventory must be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation.
• Failure of the required witnesses to sign the inventory receipt (People v. Doria y Perez, G.R. No. 227854, October 09, 2019)
• Barangay tanods were present during the inventory. While two barangay tanods were present during the preparation of the inventory, the law requires the presence of an elected public official. Barangay tanods are not elected; they are merely appointed by the Sangguniang Barangay (People v. Vertudes, G.R. No. 220725 October 16, 2019)
• The confiscated item subject of the sale was not immediately marked upon seizure and remained unmarked while in the custody of the poseur-buyer. (People v. Cabriole, G.R. No. 248418, May 5, 2021)
• Three days had passed since the items were seized from the accused (People v. Cordova, G.R. No. 231130, 2018)
• Two separate inventories were conducted which were attended by different witnesses (People v. Cabrellos, G.R. No. 229826, 2018)
• The drugs were turned over to the crime laboratory 10 days after seizure (People v. Ching, G.R. No. 223556, 2017)
• The drugs were turned over immediately to the crime laboratory, without it being first delivered to an investigating officer (People v. Calibod, G.R. No. 230230, 2017)
• Ordinary household items alleged to be drug paraphernalia were not subjected to laboratory testing to establish traces of illegal substances; the prosecution therefore failed to prove their unlawful use or intended use beyond reasonable doubt. (Cuico v. People, G.R. No. 232293, Dec. 9, 2020)
• There were discrepancies in the labels of the seized items (People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, 2018)
• There was a discrepancy in the weight of the seized items (People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 233744, 2018)
• There was a discrepancy in the number of the sachets shown in the photographs and the number of sachets for which the accused is being charged of illegally possessing (People v. Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, 2018)
• Lack of evidence as to handling and condition of the specimen, as well as precautions taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the specimen (People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 229046, September 11, 2019.)
• Failure to correctly mark the drugs and failure to make certificate of inventory for the items taken (People vs. Dagdag, G.R. No. 225503, June 26, 2019)
• No photographs of the seized items were taken (People v. Escaran, G.R. No. 212170, June 19, 2019)
• Failure of the prosecution

Q: X along with four (4) others were accused of violating Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165 specifically the sale and possession of dangerous drugs, contrary to law. That the five (5) accused in conspiracy with one another acting as a syndicate. The RTC convicted X on the strength of the prosecution’s claim while the CA held that non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 does not necessarily affect the integrity of the evidence and result in the acquittal of the accused" and "what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused" and the CA went on to hold that the prosecution was able to establish the proper chain of custody. Was X’s guilt for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165 proven beyond reasonable doubt?

A: NO, X is acquitted. In order to convict a person charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements:

• the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and
• the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.

On the other hand, to reach a conviction in a case involving the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:

• the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
• such possession is not authorized by law; and
• the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

In all drugs cases, compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such an operation. Sec. 21, RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, requires that:

• the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and
• the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of
• the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
• an elected public official, and
• a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.

For a seizure before RA 10640 took effect, the earlier version of Sec. 21 instead required a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The passage does not specify the date of seizure in X’s case.

The provision further requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation. The said inventory must be done in the presence of the required witnesses under the version of Sec. 21 applicable to the seizure, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. In this case, the apprehending team failed to conduct the physical inventory and photography in the presence of the witnesses required by the applicable version of Sec. 21. It was also testified that there was no media representative or any elected public official during the stages required. It bears emphasis that the presence of the required witnesses during the physical inventory and photography is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose. Concededly, Sec. 21 of the IRR provides that "noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items."

For this provision to be effective, however, the prosecution must first:

• recognize any lapse on the part of the police officers and
• be able to justify the same.

In sum, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the apprehending team's deviation from the rules laid down in Sec. 21 of RA 9165. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have thus been compromised. (People v. Alcantara y Mapata, G.R. No. 231361, July 3, 2019)

Links that the prosecution must establish with respect to the chain of custody in a buy bust operation

The following links must be established:

• Seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
• Turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
• Turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and,
• Turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. (People v. Watamama, G.R. No. 18871, 2014)

Q: X was accused of violating Sections 5 of R.A. No. 9165 specifically the sale of dangerous drugs contrary to law. The prosecution states the following narration of facts: PDEA received a report from a confidential informant regarding X’s drug activities and thereafter conducted a buybust operation. The agents were able to obtain one (1) sachet of shabu from X, after which the agents identified themselves as members of PDEA and X was handcuffed and searched. PDEA claims they have properly complied with the chain of custody. The defense pleads not guilty and poses the following narration of facts: An unknown female and two (2) unknown armed males approached X, pointing their gun at him; they grabbed him and pulled his arms behind his back and brought him inside a vehicle. Thereafter, he was bodily searched twice by these operatives. The agents brought X to a military camp where he was forced to sign a document. Was X’s guilt for violation of Sections 5 of R.A. 9165 proven beyond reasonable doubt?

A: NO, X is acquitted. In order to convict a person charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements:

• the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and
• the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.

On the other hand, to reach a conviction in a case involving the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:

• the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
• such possession is not authorized by law; and
• the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

In all drugs cases, compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such an operation. Sec. 21, RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, requires that:

• the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and
• the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of
• the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
• an elected public official, and
• a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.

The version of Sec. 21 applicable to an older case depends on when the seizure occurred. Before RA 10640, the required insulating witnesses were an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative.

The provision further requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation. Concededly, Sec. 21 of the IRR provides that "noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items." For this provision to be effective, however, the prosecution must first:

• recognize any lapse on the part of the police officers and
• be able to justify the same.

In sum, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the apprehending team's deviation from the rules laid down in Sec. 21 of RA 9165. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have thus been compromised. (People v. Cañete y Fernandez, G.R. No. 242018, July 3, 2019)

Q: In a buy-bust operation, X and Y were arrested for selling and having in their possession a dangerous drug, Methamphetamine Hydrocholoride, in violation of R.A. No 9165. The two P1,000 bills used for the purchase of the drugs were marked with “x”. The police officers also marked the two sachets of drugs bought and recovered from X and Y. Since a crowd was forming within the crime scene, X and Y were brought to the barangay hall where the police officers, witnessed by two barangay tanods, prepared the inventory and took photographs thereon. Should X and Y be convicted of the crime charged?

A: No, X and Y should not be convicted of the crime charged. In drug cases, the confiscated drug is the very corpus delicti of the offense so the identity and integrity of the seized drugs should be established with moral certainty. The prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs from the moment of seizure until presentation in court.

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by RA 10640, provides for the procedure in operations involving drugs cases: 1) the seized items should be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; 2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of a) the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel, b) an elected public official, and c) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. For a seizure governed by the original version, the required insulating witnesses were an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative.

In this case, the apprehending team proceeded to the barangay hall to prepare the inventory and to take photographs of the same for the reason that a crowd was forming within the crime scene. They did not allege that their safety was threatened or that the crowd meddled with their operation. Under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by RA 10640, moving a warrantless-seizure inventory away from the crime scene does not, by itself, establish a violation: inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending team, whichever is practicable. Whether the barangay hall qualified as a permitted location, whether the inventory and photography were prompt, and whether the required witnesses attended or their absence was justified must be assessed separately under the version governing this seizure. Further, none of the three witnesses required under the original version were present at the time of the arrest of X and Y and the seizure of the drugs. While two barangay tanods were present during the preparation of the inventory, the law requires the presence of an elected public official. Barangay tanods are not elected; they are merely appointed by the Sangguniang Barangay.

In the case of People v. Lim (G.R. No. 231989) it was held that it must be alleged and proved that the absence of the three witnesses required under the original version is due to reasons such as: 1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; 2) their safety was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person acting in his or her behalf; 3) the elected officials themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; 4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers; or 5) time constraints and urgency prevented the officers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses. In this case, none of these circumstances were present. (People v. Vertudes, G.R. No. 220725 October 16, 2019)