Scribd
Upload
85 views1 page

People V Garcia

The document discusses the chain of custody requirement for seized drugs under Philippine law. It summarizes a case where a defendant, Ruiz, was charged with drug possession but claimed the drugs were planted by police. While police testified about marking the seized drugs, they failed to comply with requirements that the marking be done in the presence of the defendant and other witnesses, and that those witnesses sign the inventory. This raised doubts that the drugs presented in court were the same as those seized. As a result, the defendant was acquitted due to the police's failure to establish chain of custody for the drugs according to the law.

Uploaded by

Nicole PT
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views1 page

People V Garcia

The document discusses the chain of custody requirement for seized drugs under Philippine law. It summarizes a case where a defendant, Ruiz, was charged with drug possession but claimed the drugs were planted by police. While police testified about marking the seized drugs, they failed to comply with requirements that the marking be done in the presence of the defendant and other witnesses, and that those witnesses sign the inventory. This raised doubts that the drugs presented in court were the same as those seized. As a result, the defendant was acquitted due to the police's failure to establish chain of custody for the drugs according to the law.

Uploaded by

Nicole PT
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People&v.

&Garcia&
VIOLATION&OF&THE&CHAIN&OF&CUSTODY&(DDA)&
Doctrine:& Specific'procedures'relating'to'the'seizure'and'custody'of'drugs'have'been'laid'down'in'RA'9165'
for' the' police' to' strictly' follow.' The' prosecution' must' adduce' evidence' that' these' procedures' have' been'
followed'in'proving'the'elements'of'the'defined'offense.'
Chain& of& custody& H& the' duly' recorded' authorized' movements' and' custody' of' seized' drugs' or' controlled'
chemicals' or' plant' sources' of' dangerous' drugs' or' laboratory' equipment' of' each' stage,' from' the' time' of'
seizure/confiscation' to' receipt' in' the' forensic' laboratory' to' safekeeping' to' presentation' in' court' for'
destruction.&&
R.A& 9165& Art.& II& Sec& 21:' The' apprehending' team' having' initial' custody' and' control' of' the' drugs' shall,'
immediately'after'seizure'and'confiscation,'physically)inventory)and)photograph)the)same)in)the)presence)
of) the) accused) or) the) person/s) from) whom) such) items) were) confiscated) and/or) seized,) or) his/her)
representative)or)counsel,)a)representative)from)the)media)and)the)Department)of)Justice)(DOJ),)and)any)
elected) public) official) who) shall) be) required) to) sign) the) copies) of) the) inventory) and) be) given) a) copy)
thereof.'''
RECIT&READY:&
QUICK& FACTS:'Ruiz'was'formally'charged'and'pleaded'not'guilty'to'a'violation'of'the'Dangerous'Drugs'Act'
for' selling' marijuana.' Prosecution' presented' a' single' witness,' PO1' Garcia' who' was' the' poseurLbuyer' in' the'
legitimate'buyLbust'operation.'Ruiz'sold'Marijuana'to'Garcia'during'the'buyLbust'operation.'Ruiz'now'claims'
the'he'was'a'victim'of'a'police'frameLup'and'extortion.'Also,'Ruiz'claims'the'there'was'a'failure'to'comply'with'
Sec.& 21& of& RA& 9165'or'the'chain'of'custody'rule'on'seized'drugs.'Other& than& the& markings& made& by& P01&
Garcia& and& the& police& investigator,& no& physical& inventory& was& ever& made,& and& no& photograph& of& the&
seized&items&was&taken&under&the&circumstances&required&by&RA&9165&and&its&implementing&rules.&&
ISSUE:)W/N)Ruiz)should)be)acquitted)for)failure)of)the)police)to)follow)the)chain)of)custody)requirement?)
YES.& Ruiz& is& acquitted.& While'there'was'testimony'with'respect'to'the'markings'of'the'seized'items'at'the'
police'station,'no'mention'whatsoever'was'made'on'whether'the'marking'had'been'done'in'the'presence'of'
Ruiz'or'his'representatives.'There'was'likewise'no'mention'that'any'representative'from'the'media'and'the'
DOJ,' or' any' elected' official' had' been' present' during' this' inventory,' or' that' any' of' these' people' had' been'
required'to'sign'the'copies'of'the'inventory.'The'procedural'lapses'in'the'handling'and'identification'of'the'
seized'items,'as'well'as'the'unexplained'discrepancy'in'their'markings,'collectively'raise'doubts'on'whether'
the' items' presented' in' court' were' the' exact' same' items' that' were' taken' from' Ruiz' when' he' was'
arrested.'These'constitute'major'lapses'that'are'fatal'to'the'prosecutions'case.'Prosecution'failed'to'establish'
accuseds'guilt'beyond'reasonable'doubt,'specifically,'the'prosecution'failed'to'show'that'the'police'complied'
with'paragraph'1,'Section'21,'Article'II'of'R.A.'No.'9165,'and'with'the'chain'of'evidence'requirement'of'this'
Act.'
'
'
'

You might also like