Page 1 of 1
5. Lopez vs People
G. R. No. 172953, April 30,2008
CASE DIGESTED BY: Lopena, Maria Lourdes M.
FACTS:
On the strength of a search warrant, a team of five police officers raided the residence of Junie Malillin y Lopez . The
search—conducted in the presence of barangay kagawad Delfin Licup as well as Malilin himself, his wife Sheila and
his mother, Norma—allegedly yielded two (2) plastic sachets of shabu and five (5) empty plastic sachets containing
residual morsels of the said substance. Thereafter, Malilin was charged with violation of The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
During the trial, P/Insp. Bolanos and PO3 Esternon testified on the circumstances surrounding the search and seizure
of the illegal substance. Esternon admitted that he brought the seized items to the Balogo Police Station for a "true
inventory," then to the trial court and thereafter to the laboratory. Supt. Lorlie Arroyo, the forensic chemist who
administered the examination on the seized items, was presented as an expert witness. She revealed that the two
filled sachets were positive of shabu and that four of the five empty sachets were positive of containing residue of
the same substance. She further admitted that all seven sachets were delivered to the laboratory by Esternon and
received by a certain Garcia.
The RTC and the CA found Malilin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged.
ISSUE:
W/N the identity of the seized items was established.
RULING:
No. 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 it to
be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it
is offered into evidence, in such a way that 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.
A glance at the records readily raises significant doubts as to the identity of the sachets of shabu allegedly seized
from Malilin. Of the people who came into direct contact with the seized objects, only Esternon and Arroyo testified
for the specific purpose of establishing the identity of the evidence. Gallinera, to whom Esternon supposedly handed
over the confiscated sachets for recording and marking, as well as Garcia, the person to whom Esternon directly
handed over the seized items for chemical analysis at the crime laboratory, were not presented in court to establish
the circumstances under which they handled the subject items.
The prosecution was thus unsuccessful in discharging its burden of establishing the identity of the seized items
because it failed to offer not only the testimony of Gallinera and Garcia but also any sufficient explanation for such
failure. In effect, there is no reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the exhibits inasmuch as it failed to rule out
the possibility of substitution of the exhibits. This holds true not only with respect to the two filled sachets but also
to the five sachets allegedly containing morsels of shabu.
