Dear PAO,
The police did not mark the firearm seized from me when I was arrested involving prohibited drugs. I am of the opinion that the omission was in violation of the chain of custody rule. Am I correct in my assumption that the gun must also comply with the chain of custody rule?
Tilamsy
Dear Tilamsy,
Based on the given set of facts, the situation calls for the proper application of Section 1 of Republic Act (RA) 10640, which amended Section 21 of RA 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002, which provides that:
“(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment 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/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.”
The afore-stated provision of the law is also called the “chain of custody rule.” The purpose of which is to remove doubt or uncertainty as to the integrity of the seized drugs. The said rule may not apply to other objects like the gun. This finds support in the case of Pablo vs. People of the Philippines, GR 253504, Feb. 1, 2023, where the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., stated that:
“Regarding whether the chain of custody was properly established in this case, the Court emphasizes that the application of the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165 has not been extended to other objects seized. Where the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable and relatively resistant to change, that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims. The chain of custody rule does not apply to an object which is amorphous and relatively resistant to change; a witness of the prosecution need only identify the structured object based on personal knowledge that the same contraband or the article is what it purports to be and that it came from the person of the accused. Thus, a testimony showing the handling of the firearms and ammunition upon confiscation, turnover to the crime laboratory and its later identification to the court, will suffice. In this case, the prosecution substantially complied with the foregoing rule as PO1 Nadura and PO1 Tuble were able to testify on the handling and turnover of the firearms and ammunition, and were able to identify the same in open court.”Applying the above-quoted jurisprudence to your situation, the seized gun need not observe the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. This is for the simple reason that the gun is unique, readily identifiable and relatively resistant to change. So, testimonies showing the handling of the gun, turnover to the crime laboratory and identification before the court is enough to establish the integrity of said evidence or that the gun which was seized from you was the very evidence which was presented in court.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.
