4. What is a buy-bust operation?

Identify the “complete picture” of the drug transaction or the

material details of a buy-bust operation that the prosecution must present in drugs cases.

A buy bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted as a valid form
of arresting violators of dangerous drugs law. In a buy bus operation the violator is caught
flagrante delicto and the police officers conduction the operation are not only authorized but
duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of
or used in the commission of the crime.

It is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy bust operation:
(a) From the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher;
(b) The offer of purchase;
(c) The promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by
delivery of the illegal drug subject of sale.

5. What is “chain of custody”? Outline the procedures/ guidelines that must be observed in
ensuring the chain of custody of seized drugs per Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and its IRR. Will non-
compliance of these guidelines render the seizure void? Why or why not?
Chain of Custody (CDC) is a process essential to preserving the integrity of the of the evidence of
corpus delicti. To prove the existence of the corpus delicti in drug cases, the prosecution must
establish the identity and the integrity of the dangerous drugs itself were preserved. The identity
of the confiscated is preserved when the drugs presented as evidence in court is the exact same
item that was seized or confiscated from the accused at the time of his arrest. The preservation
of the drugs identity means that its evidentiary value is intact as it was not subject to planting,
switching, tampering, or any other circumstance that casts doubt to its existence.

Sec 21 outline:

- The apprehending team shall immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical
inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel and a
representative of the National Protection Service or the media who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
o Physical inventory must be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served
o In case of warrantless seizures, the nearest police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending team whichever is practicable;
- Within 24 hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, the seized items shall be
submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
- 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.
o When the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of
testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be
 provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be
examined by the forensic laboratory;
o That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours
- Noncompliance of the following requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render the
seizures and custody void and invalid as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved.

a. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Ramil Doria Dahil and Rommel Castro y Carlos
(G.R. No. 212196, 12 January 2015), what were the important “links” in the Chain of
Custody of Dangerous Drugs identified by the Supreme Court that the prosecution has the
burden to prove? In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Romy Lim y Miranda (G.R.
No. 231989, 4 September 2018), how was this further clarified by the Supreme Court?

The Court identified the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody
in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of
the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court (People v Doria)

Section 21(1)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof.
Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where
the seizure was done (or at a location as practicably close to it) minimizes, if not
eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence. The presence of the
accused (or a representative) and of third-party witnesses, coupled with their attestations
on the written inventory, ensures that the items delivered to the investigating officer are
the items which have actually been inventoried (People v Lim y Miranda)

b. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Edwin Partoza y Evora (G.R. No. 182418, 8 May
2009), what was the crucial error of the arresting officers that made the Supreme Court
overturn the finding of conviction by the lower court?

PO3 Tougan did not mark the seized drugs immediately after he arrested appellant in the
latter's presence. Neither did he make an inventory and take a photograph of the
confiscated items in the presence of appellant. There was no representative from the
media and the Department of Justice, or any elected public official who participated in
the operation and who were supposed to sign an inventory of seized items and be given
copies thereof.

Furthermore, while PO3 Tougan admitted to have in his possession the shabu from the
time appellant was apprehended at the crime scene to the police station, records are
bereft of proof on how the seized items were handled from the time they left the hands
of PO3 Tougan. PO3 Tougan mentioned a certain Inspector Manahan as the one who
signed the request for laboratory examination. He did not however relate to whom the
custody of the drugs was turned over. Furthermore, the evidence of the prosecution did
 not reveal the identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs
after its examination and pending presentation in court. The failure of the prosecution to
establish the chain of custody is fatal to its cause.

All told, the identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt.

c. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Sonny Padua y Reyes, what was the ruling of
the Supreme Court relative the prosecution’s failure to present the following witnesses: [i]
the investigating officer; [ii] the Forensic Chemist; and, [iii] the supposed Informant?
However, in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Fernando Habana y Orante (G.R. No.
188900, 5 March 2010), what was the crucial factor identified by the Supreme Court that
impacted the non-presentation of several witnesses?

The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the
forensic chemist, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of
presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The
prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose
whom it wishes to present as witnesses.

Anent the failure of the prosecution to present the testimony of the informant, it is well-
settled that the testimony of an informant in drug-pushing cases is not essential for
conviction and may be dispensed if the poseur-buyer testified on the same. Informants
are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their
invaluable service to the police.

However, in People v Habana, it was held that if the sealing of the seized substance has
not been made, the prosecution would have to present every police officer, messenger,
laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of custody, no matter how
briefly one’s possession has been. Each of them has to testify that the substance, although
unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while in his care.

d. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Roselle Santiago y Pabalinas (G.R. No. 191061,
9 February 2011), what procedural lapse did the Supreme Court find that made them
overturn the finding of conviction by the lower court?

Esguerra testified that he seized a heat-sealed sachet of white substance from Roselle and
marked the sachet with "RPS" right in her presence. He claimed that he then immediately
submitted the specimen to the police crime laboratory for examination. But the request
for laboratory exam reveals that it was not Esguerra who delivered the specimen to the
crime laboratory. It appears that Esguerra gave it to a certain SPO3 Puno who in turn
forwarded it to a certain PO2 Santos. No testimony covers the movement of the specimen
among these other persons. Consequently, the prosecution was unable to establish the
chain of custody of the seized item and its preservation from possible tampering.