1
Dangerous drugs act (ra 9165):
Dangerous drugs act ( ra 9165) By: ATTY
JOENEL M AURELIO POLICE
SUPERINTENDENT
JURISPRUDENCE SELLING OF DRUGS,
REQUIREMENTS:
JURISPRUDENCE SELLING OF DRUGS,
REQUIREMENTS People v. Dela Rosa,
January 26, 2011; People v. Baga ,
November 15, 2010. identities of the
buyer and seller, the object, and the
consideration; the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor . the
transaction or sale be proved to have
actually taken place coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of
corpus delicti . Corpus delicti means the
"actual commission by someone of the
particular crime charged
JURISPRUDENCE validity of a buy-bust
operation:
JURISPRUDENCE validity of a buy-bust
operation "objective" test – the details
of the purported transaction during the
buy-bust operation must be clearly and
adequately shown, the initial contact
between the poseur-buyer and the
pusher, the offer to purchase, and the
promise or payment of the
consideration until the consummation
of the sale by the delivery of the illegal
drug subject of the sale.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION: ELEMENTS:
ILLEGAL POSSESSION: ELEMENTS THE
APPELLANT WAS IN POSSESSION OF AN
ITEM OR AN OBJECT IDENTIFIED TO BE
A PROHIBITED OR REGULATED DRUG
SUCH POSSESSION IS NOT AUTHORIZED
BY LAW THE APPELLANT WAS FREELY
AND CONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF BEING
IN POSSESSION OF THE DRUG
ILLEGAL POSSESSION: ELEMENTS:
ILLEGAL POSSESSION: ELEMENTS MERE
POSSESSION OF A REGULATED DRUG
PER SE CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE SUFFICIENT
TO CONVICT AN ACCUSED ABOUT A
SATISFACTORYEXPLANATION
PROCEDURE FOR THE CUSTODY AND
DISPOSITION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS :
PROCEDURE FOR THE CUSTODY AND
DISPOSITION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs xxx for
proper disposition in the following
manner : 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 of personal effects seized from
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;
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY/
PHYSICAL INVENTORY:
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY/
PHYSICAL INVENTORY Adriano v. People
of the Phil, July 13, 2011 ISSUE:
Petitioner raises as issue that the two
plastic sachets containing shabu were
inadmissible in evidence because the
integrity of the chain of custody was
impaired. He states the failure to:
conduct a physical inventory;
photograph the plastic sachet in the
presence of the accused or his
representative, counsel, representative
from the media and the Department of
Justice and any elected public official;
and immediately mark the plastic
sachet on site, all cast doubt as to
whether the chain of custody remains
intact.
JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY:
JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY
Adriano v. People of the Phil, July 13,
2011 HELD: The failure of the policemen
to make a physical inventory and to
photograph the two plastic sachets
containing shabu do not render the
confiscated items inadmissible in
evidence. In People v. Campos , the
Court held that the failure of the
policemen to make a physical inventory
and to photograph the confiscated
items are not fatal to the prosecution’s
cause
JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY:
JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY
Adriano v. People of the Phil, July 13,
2011 HELD: The alleged procedural
lapses in the conduct of the buy-bust
operation, namely the lack of prior
coordination with the PDEA and the
failure to inventory and photograph the
confiscated items immediately after the
operation , are not fatal to the
prosecution’s cause .
JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY:
JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY
Adriano v. People of the Phil, July 13,
2011 HELD: The absence of an inventory
appellant becomes immaterial to the
legitimacy of the buy-bust operation for
it is enough that it is established that
the operation was indeed conducted
and that the identity of the seller and
the drugs subject of the sale are proven
.
JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY:
JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY
People v. Concepcion The prosecution’s
failure to submit in evidence the
required physical inventory of the
seized drugs and the photography
pursuant to Section 21, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 will not
exonerate appellants. Non-compliance
with said section is not fatal and will not
render an accused’s arrest illegal or the
items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible. What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items , as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt
or innocence of the accused.
Disposition of Drugs:
Disposition of Drugs Within twenty-four
(24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of
dangerous drugs, the same shall be
submitted to the PDEA Forensic
Laboratory for a qualitative and
quantitative examination
Disposition of Drugs:
Disposition of Drugs A certification of
the forensic laboratory examination
results, which shall be done under oath
by the forensic laboratory examiner,
shall be issued within twenty-four (24)
hours after the receipt of the subject
item/s:
Disposition of Drugs:
Disposition of Drugs After the filing of
the criminal case, the Court shall, within
seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an
ocular inspection of the confiscated,

seized and/or surrendered dangerous
drugs and through the PDEA shall within
twenty-four (24) hours thereafter
proceed with the destruction or burning
of the same
CASE SAMPLE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY/
DISPOSITION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS:
CASE SAMPLE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY/
DISPOSITION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
SEIZURE BY THE APPREHENDING
OFFICER:
SEIZURE BY THE APPREHENDING
OFFICER every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from
whom it was received, where it was and
what happened to it while in the
witness’ possession, the condition in
which it was received and the condition
in which it was delivered to the next link
in the chain.
TURN-OVER TO THE INVESTIGATOR:
TURN-OVER TO THE INVESTIGATOR
TURN-OVER TO THE CHEMIST:
TURN-OVER TO THE CHEMIST
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY:
method of authenticating evidence:
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY:
method of authenticating evidence
People v. Roble , April 11, 2011 - include
testimony about every link in the chain
from the moment the item was picked
up to the time it is offered into evidence
every person who touched the exhibit
would describe how and from whom it
was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness’
possession, the condition in which it
was received and the condition in which
it was delivered to the next link in the
chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change
in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the
chain to have possession of the same.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY: BUY-BUST :
CHAIN OF CUSTODY: BUY-BUST LINKS
MUST BE ESTABLISHED The seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer The turn-over of
the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the
investigating officer The turn-over by
the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination The turn-over
and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized from the forensic chemist
to the court (people v. lee, 622 scra 571)
JURISRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY:
JURISRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Julius Cacao v. People of the Phil,
January 22, 2010 Thus, there is no
evidence to prove that what was turned
over to the evidence custodian and
later presented in court was the same
substance recovered from petitioner.
The failure to establish the chain of
custody is fatal to the prosecution’s
case. There can be no crime of illegal
possession of a prohibited drug when
nagging doubts persist on whether the
item confiscated was the same
specimen examined and established to
be the prohibited drug
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY:
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY it
must be stressed that the " corpus
delicti in dangerous drugs cases
constitutes the drug itself. This means
that proof beyond reasonable doubt of
the identity of the prohibited drug is
essential
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY:
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
People v. Gutierrez, December 4, 2009
As a mode of authenticating evidence,
the chain of custody rule requires the
presentation of the seized prohibited
drugs as an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding
that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. This would
ideally cover the testimony about every
link in the chain, from seizure of the
prohibited drug up to the time it is
offered in evidence, in such a way that
everyone who touched the exhibit
would describe how and from whom it
was received, to include, as much as
possible, a description of the condition
in which it was delivered to the next in
the chain.
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY/
Custody and Disposition of
ConfiscatedDangerous Drugs:
2
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY/
Custody and Disposition of
ConfiscatedDangerous Drugs People v.
Resurreccion , October 12, 2009 the
failure of the policemen to immediately
mark the confiscated items does not
automatically impair the integrity of
chain of custody . The failure to strictly
comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA
9165 does not necessarily render an
accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible.
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF
CUSTODY/MARKING:
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF
CUSTODY/MARKING People v. Sanchez
and People v. Gum- Oyen RA 9165 does
not specify a time frame for "immediate
marking," or where said marking should
be done. What Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165 and its implementing rule do not
expressly specify is the matter of
"marking" of the seized items in
warrantless seizures to ensure that the
evidence seized upon apprehension is
the same evidence subjected to
inventory and photography when these
activities are undertaken at the police
station rather than at the place of
arrest. Consistency with the " chain of
custody " rule requires that the
"marking" of the seized items — to truly
ensure that they are the same items
that enter the chain and are eventually
the ones offered in evidence — should
be done (1) in the presence of the
apprehended violator (2) immediately
upon confiscation."
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF
CUSTODY/MARKING:
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF
CUSTODY/MARKING People v. Sanchez
and People v. Gum- Oyen To be able to
create a first link in the chain of custody
: what is required is that the marking be
made in the presence of the accused
and upon immediate confiscation.
"Immediate Confiscation" has no exact
definition. testimony that included the
marking of the seized items at the police
station and in the presence of the
accused was sufficient in showing
compliance with the rules on chain of
custody. Marking upon immediate
confiscation contemplates even

marking at the nearest police station or
office of the apprehending team.
JURISPRUDENCE PRESUMPTION OF
REGULARITY:
JURISPRUDENCE PRESUMPTION OF
REGULARITY Adriano v. People of the
Phil, July 13, 2011 HELD: The
presumption is that the policemen
performed their official duties regularly.
In order to overcome this presumption,
Imson must show that there was bad
faith or improper motive on the part of
the policemen, or that the confiscated
items were tampered.
BUY-BUST OPERATION:
BUY-BUST OPERATION A form of
entrapment as a valid and effective
mode of apprehending drug pushers
(pp v. sembrano , 628 scra 328) A prior
surveillance much less a lengthy one, is
not necessary during an entrapment –
there is no textbook method of
conducting buy-bust operations (pp v.
padua , 625 scra 220) Neither law nor
jurisprudence requires the presentation
of any of the money used in a buy-bust
operation (pp v. gonzaga , 632 scra
551). The marked money is not
indispensable but merely corroborative
in nature.
BUY-BUST OPERATION:
BUY-BUST OPERATION A search warrant
or warrant of arrest is not needed in a
buy-bust operation where the accused
is caught in flagrante delicto in
possession of, and selling, dangerous
drugs to the poseur-buyer. The
existence of dangerous drugs is a
condition sine qua non for conviction
for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it
being the very corpus delicti of the
crime; What must also be established is
the fact that the substance bought
during the buy-bust operation is the
same substance offered in court as
exhibit.
VALIDITY OF BUY-BUST
OPERATION:OBJECTIVE TEST:
VALIDITY OF BUY-BUST
OPERATION:OBJECTIVE TEST the details
of the purported transaction during the
buy-bust operation must be clearly and
adequately shown: the initial contact
between the poseur-buyer and the
pusher the offer to purchase and the
promise or payment of the
consideration until the consummation
of the sale by the delivery of the illegal
drug subject of the sale.
BUY-BUST OPERATION:
BUY-BUST OPERATION Coordination
with the PDEA is not an indispensable
requirement before police authorities
may carry out a buy-bust operation – a
buy-bust operation is not invalidated by
a mere non-coordination with the PDEA
(Pp v. Roa , 620 scra 359)
BUY-BUST OPERATION:
BUY-BUST OPERATION The accused is
caught in the act and must be
apprehended on the spot; From the
very nature of a buy-bust operation, the
absence of a warrant does not make the
arrest illegal (Pp v. Marcelino 625 scra
632) Since the buy-bust operation was
established as legitimate, it follows that
the search was also valid, and a warrant
was likewise not needed to conduct it.
(id) When an arrest is made during an
entrapment operation, it is not required
that a warrant be secured in line with
the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a)
of the Revised Rules of Court allowing
warrantless arrest (Pp v. Sembrano 628
scra 328)
BUY-BUST OPERATION:
BUY-BUST OPERATION A search warrant
or warrant of arrest is not needed in a
buy-bust operation where the accused
is caught in flagrante delicto in
possession of, and selling , dangerous
drugs to the poseur-buyer (Pp v.
Araneta , 634 scra 475) Absent any
convincing countervailing evidence, the
presumption is that the members of the
buy-bust team performed their duties
in a regular manner. It was certainly a
job well done. (Id)
When in flagrante delicto arrest
applicable?:
When in flagrante delicto arrest
applicable? When in the presence of
the law enforcer or a private person the
person to be arrested has committed a
crime; is actually committing; Is
attempting to commit an offense The
arresting therefore must have personal
knowledge of such fact or personal
knowledge of such facts or
3
circumstances convincingly indicative
or constitutive of probable cause
WARRANTLESS SEARCH:
WARRANTLESS SEARCH SEARCH OF A
MOVING VEHICLE this had been
justified on the ground that the mobility
of motor vehicles makes it possible for
the vehicle to be searched to move out
of the locality or jurisdiction in which
the warrant must be sought. Extensive
Search is valid only as long as the
officers conducting the search have
reasonable or probable cause to believe
before the search that they will find the
instrumentality or evidence pertaining
to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.
WARRANTLESS SEARCH:
WARRANTLESS SEARCH EXIGENT AND
EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES (Pp v.
Mariacos , June 16, 2010 and Pp v. Aruta
) There was no reasonable time to
obtain a search warrant, especially
since the identity of the suspect could
not be readily ascertained
. His actuations also aroused the
suspicion of the officers conducting the
operation. The Court held that in light
of such circumstances, to deprive the
agents of the ability and facility to act
promptly, including a search without a
warrant, would be to sanction
impotence and ineffectiveness in law
enforcement, to the detriment of
society.