c. Chain of Custody

Standard of Proper Foundation

If the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change, that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims.

Otherwise, the chain of custody rule has to be resorted to and complied with by the proponent to satisfy the evidentiary requirement of relevancy. (People v. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209, March 11, 2019)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN RELATION TO SEC. 21 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002

Persons who actually handled or had custody of the object must show through testimony that there is no possibility that the evidence was tampered with and that the integrity of the evidence was preserved throughout the course of gathering, collecting and storing the evidence. This is done to ensure that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence seized from the defendant or recovered from the crime scene or elsewhere.

Updated: For seized drugs, the prosecution must justify chain-of-custody lapses, including the absence of required inventory witnesses, even if the defense did not object at trial (Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, 11 November 2019).

Non-Compliance with the Doctrine of Chain of Custody

General Rule: Non-compliance renders the seizure and custody over the illegal drugs as void and invalid. (People v. Del Rosario y Niebres, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020)

Exception: Non-compliance is not fatal and will not make the accused’s arrest illegal nor render the items seized as inadmissible, provided:

• There is justifiable ground; and
• The integrity and evidentiary value of the items are properly preserved (R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 21; People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 205414, 2016; People v. Del Rosario y Niebres, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020)

Case Law: Chain of Custody

The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to its admission into evidence. To establish a chain of custody sufficient to make evidence admissible, the proponent needs only to prove a rational basis from which to conclude that the evidence is what the party claims it to be. In other words, in a criminal case, the prosecution must offer sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably believe that an item still is what the government claims it to be. Specifically in the prosecution of illegal drugs, the well-established federal evidentiary rule in the United States is that when the evidence is not readily identifiable and is susceptible to alteration by tampering or contamination, courts require a more stringent foundation entailing a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.

It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:

• Their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area;
• Their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf;
• The elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended;
• Earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or
• Time constraints and urgency of the antidrug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. (People v. Romy Lim, G.R. No. 231989, 2018)

Each custodian of the evidence is not required to testify as long as sufficient testimony is given by some of the persons who have come into contact with the evidence to negate the possibility of tampering. (People v. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403, June 13, 2012)

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims to be.

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.

While the SC in certain cases has tempered the mandate of strict compliance with the requisite under Sec. 21 of RA 9165, such liberality, as stated in the IRR can be applied only when the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved. In the case at bar, the evidentiary value and integrity of the alleged illegal drug had been thoroughly compromised. Serious uncertainty is generated on the identity of the item in view of the broken linkages in the chain of custody. In this light, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty accorded the buy-bust team by the courts below cannot arise. (People of the Philippines v. Fernando Ranche Havana a.k.a. Fernando Ranche Abana, G.R. No. 198450, 2016)

Generally, the authenticity of the seized items will be put into doubt, and the state cannot establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody. (People v. Relato, G.R. No. 173794, 2012)

However, a conviction based on the seized items may still be possible as long as there is justifiable ground for noncompliance and there is preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. (Cerbo v. People, G.R. No. 176077, 2011)

Historically, the Court has applied the "chain of custody" rule as a mode of authenticating illegal drug substances in order to determine its admissibility.

However, such rule has not yet been extended to other substances or objects for it is only a variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to its admission into evidence.

At this point, it becomes necessary to point out that the degree of fungibility of amorphous objects without an inherent unique characteristic capable of scientific determination, i.e., DNA testing, is higher than stably structured objects or those which retain their form because the likelihood of tracing the former objects' source is more difficult, if not impossible.

Narcotic substances, for example, are relatively easy to source because they are readily available in small quantities thereby allowing the buyer to obtain them at lower cost or minimal effort. It makes these substances highly susceptible to being used by corrupt law enforcers to plant evidence on the person of a hapless and innocent victim for the purpose of extortion. Such is the reason why narcotic substances should undergo the tedious process of being authenticated in accordance with the chain of custody rule.

In this regard, the Court emphasizes that if the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change, that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims; otherwise, the chain of custody rule has to be resorted to and complied with by the proponent to satisfy the evidentiary requirement of relevancy.

In the case at hand, the chain of custody rule does not apply to an undetonated grenade (an object made unique), for it is not amorphous and its form is relatively resistant to change. A witness of the prosecution need only identify the hand grenade, a structured object, based on personal knowledge that the same contraband or article is what it purports to be—that it came from the person of accusedappellant. (People vs. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209, 2019)

Bail in Drugs Cases

In drug cases, there must be compliance with the rule on the chain of custody. Otherwise, the evidence that guilt is strong is negated, and therefore, bail becomes a matter of discretion (J. Caguioa, People v. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, 2019).