G.R. No. 246577 , July 13, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SIU MING TAT AND LEE YOONG HOEW, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

This is a Concurring Opinion by Justice Caguioa in a case where accused-appellants Siu Ming Tat and Lee Yoong Hoew were convicted for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The opinion underscores that the procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the chain of custody of seized drugs can be strictly complied with. The prosecution established the following chain of custody: (1) Immediately after the buy-bust operation, the apprehending officer, PO3 Ernesto Mabanglo, marked the seized plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance with “EAM 07-26-2012 EXH. A” and conducted an inventory and photography at the site in the presence of the accused-appellants, a Department of Justice representative, a barangay official, and a media representative. (2) The seized item was turned over to the duty investigator, SPO1 Enrico Calva, at the police station. (3) The specimen was brought to the crime laboratory, received by PCI Mark Allain Ballesteros, and examined, testing positive for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. (4) The ephedrine was brought to and identified in open court.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The prosecution proved an unbroken chain of custody through strict compliance with the procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 . All necessary links were established: (1) immediate marking, inventory, and photography at the arrest site in the presence of the accused and the required insulating witnesses; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) presentation and identification in court. This strict compliance preserved the evidentiary value of the seized drugs and foreclosed opportunities for evidence tampering. The Concurring Opinion emphasizes that the chain of custody rule is not difficult to observe and can be strictly followed, and deviations by law enforcement without justifiable reason may lead the court to doubt the occurrence of the buy-bust operation. Based on these premises, the conviction of the accused-appellants is affirmed.