327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination
Can law enforcement agencies bypass the strict chain of
custody requirements in drug-related cases without jeopardizing the
prosecution’s case?
Case Title:
People of the Philippines vs. Elizalde Diamante y Jereza
and Eleudoro Cedullo III y Gavino
G.R. No. 231980, October 9, 2019
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Elizalde Diamante and Eleudoro Cedullo III were charged with
violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) 9165, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. On April 6, 2010, a buy-bust
operation was conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in
Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat. During the operation, PDEA agent Michelle
Andrade acted as the poseur buyer, and the accused delivered a sachet of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as shabu) to her in exchange for
a marked P500 bill. The accused were arrested when they attempted to flee, and
the marked money was recovered from them. Several other pieces of drug
paraphernalia were found on the premises.
The trial court convicted the accused of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fined them
P1,000,000 each. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the
prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs,
and the testimonies of the PDEA agents were presumed regular due to their
official functions.
However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, the accused raised
several procedural lapses in the chain of custody, particularly the lack of
proper witnesses during the physical inventory and failure to immediately
conduct the required documentation at the place of arrest.
PRIMARY ISSUE:
Was the chain of custody in handling the seized drugs
properly complied with, as required under RA 9165?
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to
failure to comply with the chain of custody rule, as mandated by RA 9165. It
found significant gaps in the prosecution’s evidence:
- The
inventory and photographs of the seized items were not conducted in the
presence of a media representative or a Department of Justice (DOJ)
representative, as required by law.
- The
buy-bust team transported the seized drugs from the place of arrest to a
media office for documentation, which opened up opportunities for
tampering or switching of evidence.
- A
police officer who received the seized drugs at the crime laboratory was
not presented as a witness, creating an unaddressed gap in the chain of
custody.
- The
prosecution also failed to establish how the drugs were handled and stored
between forensic examination and presentation in court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the breaches in the chain of
custody rule were fatal to the case, as they rendered the integrity of the
evidence questionable. The failure of the prosecution to present justifiable
grounds for these lapses invalidated the evidence presented, and the saving
clause under Section 21 of RA 9165 could not apply.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
"ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated
February 9, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01171-MIN is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellants Elizalde Diamante and Eleudoro Cedullo III
are ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 3230-T. The Superintendent of the Davao
Prison and Penal Farm, B.E. Dujali, Davao Del Norte is ordered to immediately
release Elizalde Diamante and Eleudoro Cedullo III from custody unless they are
being held for some other lawful cause. Let an entry of final judgment be
issued immediately."
In cases where the procedural safeguards of the chain of
custody are breached, should the judiciary automatically lean towards
acquittal, or is there room for a more lenient interpretation?
IMPORTANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED:
- Chain
of Custody Rule (RA 9165)
- The
integrity of the evidence in drug-related cases must be preserved through
strict compliance with the chain of custody, which involves the proper
handling, inventory, and documentation of seized drugs from arrest to
court presentation.
- Saving
Clause (Section 21, RA 9165)
- Deviations
from the chain of custody rule are allowed only if justified by
acceptable grounds and if the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized drugs are preserved. In the absence of such justification,
non-compliance is fatal to the prosecution's case.
- Presumption
of Regularity in the Performance of Official Functions
- This
presumption may not be used to cover procedural lapses or deficiencies in
the evidence, especially where the chain of custody is in question.
Classification:
Criminal Law
Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!
CHAT WITH ME! (CLICK HERE)
🎓 In this legal content,
we will explore a key jurisprudence in Criminal Law that tackled the strict
application of the chain of custody rule under Republic Act No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The purpose of this video is to aid
law students, bar reviewees, and baristas in mastering and recalling the doctrinal
teachings embedded in this case.
📚 CASE INFORMATION:
Case Title: People of the Philippines v. Elizalde
Diamante and Eleudoro Cedullo III
G.R. No.: 231980
Date of Promulgation: October 9, 2019
Nature of Case: Criminal Law – Violation of Section
5, Article II of R.A. 9165
🧾 BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE
CASE:
The accused were arrested in a buy-bust operation involving
₱500 worth of shabu. Convicted by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, they appealed
to the Supreme Court, raising serious violations in the chain of custody.
The High Court acquitted them due to fatal lapses—no DOJ representative
during inventory, and improper handling of the evidence, among others.
💭 If law enforcers
can ignore basic legal protocols, does this endanger innocent people under our
criminal justice system?
🔟 TEN IMPORTANT DOCTRINES
FROM THE CASE
- Chain
of Custody as Corpus Delicti
- In
drug cases, the illegal drug itself is the corpus delicti. Its identity
must be preserved through every stage of the seizure and prosecution.
(G.R. No. 231980, p. 10) - Four
Links of Chain of Custody
- These
include seizure and marking, turnover to investigator, delivery to
forensic chemist, and presentation in court. A break in any of these is
fatal.
(p. 11) - Presence
of Required Witnesses
- Inventory
must be done in the presence of the accused, a DOJ rep, a media rep, and
an elected public official. Post-facto presence is insufficient.
(pp. 12-13) - Inventory
at Site of Arrest
- Evidence
must be inventoried and photographed immediately at the site or nearest
station, not later or elsewhere.
(p. 13) - Justifiable
Grounds Rule
- Deviations
from Section 21 are allowed only when there are clear, justifiable
reasons AND integrity of evidence is preserved.
(p. 16) - Presumption
of Regularity Not Absolute
- Presumption
of regularity cannot override procedural violations that compromise
evidence integrity.
(p. 18) - Effect
of Absence of DOJ Representative
- The
failure to present a DOJ witness during inventory invalidates the
process unless justified and integrity is intact.
(pp. 14-15) - Need
to Present All Custodians
- All
officers who handled the evidence (e.g., PO2 Tauro) must testify;
otherwise, the link is broken.
(p. 15) - Storage
and Transfer Post-Examination
- Prosecution
must prove how evidence was stored after forensic testing and before
court presentation.
(p. 16) - Use
of Affidavit of Justification
- Mere
affidavits explaining non-compliance do not suffice if not backed by
actual proof and witness testimony.
(p. 14)
❓ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
(FAQs):
- Q:
What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases?
A: It ensures proper documentation and handling of seized drugs from the point of arrest to court presentation to preserve its identity. - Q:
Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused?
A: Due to multiple violations of the chain of custody rule that compromised the integrity of the evidence. - Q:
Can absence of a DOJ representative invalidate the case?
A: Yes, unless there is a justifiable reason and the integrity of the evidence is proven to be intact. - Q:
What happens if a custodian of the drug evidence is not presented in
court?
A: It creates a break in the chain of custody, which could lead to acquittal. - Q:
Is presumption of regularity enough to sustain a conviction?
A: No. It cannot prevail over documented procedural violations in the handling of evidence.
📌 DISCLAIMER:
This video is for educational purposes only. It does
not guarantee that the content is infallible and is created using premium AI
technology.
🔗 Check out our
resources and connect with us:
📘 Philippine Law
Reviewers: https://www.raket.ph/lawrequisitesph
🎵 TikTok: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphtiktok
📘 Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphfb
▶️ YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesph
🎓 INTRODUCTION BY A
PHILIPPINE LAW PROFESSOR:
Welcome to this legal quizzer crafted specifically for law
students and bar reviewees! This quizzer focuses on an important Supreme Court
decision that emphasizes procedural due process in criminal prosecutions
involving dangerous drugs.
This quiz is based on the case People of the Philippines
v. Elizalde Diamante and Eleudoro Cedullo III, G.R. No. 231980, promulgated
on October 9, 2019. The nature of this case falls under Criminal Law,
specifically involving the alleged illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The accused were arrested during a buy-bust operation
involving ₱500 worth of shabu. They were convicted by the RTC and their
conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court acquitted
them due to significant violations of the chain of custody rule,
including the absence of proper witnesses during the inventory, a broken chain
of evidence handlers, and the prosecution’s failure to justify these procedural
lapses.
Stay tuned—the answer key will be provided at the end of
the video. Let's begin!
📘 EASY HOTS QUESTIONS:
1.
Why did the Supreme Court ultimately acquit the accused in
the case?
A. The forensic chemist failed to testify
B. There was no eyewitness to the drug transaction
C. The prosecution failed to maintain an unbroken chain of
custody
D. The buy-bust money was not marked properly
2.
What critical procedural requirement was lacking during the
inventory of seized drugs?
A. Presence of a barangay kagawad
B. Presence of both DOJ and media representatives
C. Recording of the time of arrest
D. Police blotter entry
3.
What key concept ensures that the identity of the seized
drug remains untampered from seizure to court presentation?
A. Custodial Investigation
B. Presumption of Regularity
C. Chain of Custody
D. Due Process
4.
In the context of a drug case, what does the term “corpus
delicti” specifically refer to?
A. The accused
B. The arresting officer's affidavit
C. The illegal drug itself
D. The informant’s testimony
5.
Which officer failed to appear in court and caused a break
in the chain of custody?
A. The arresting officer
B. The barangay kagawad
C. The police laboratory custodian
D. The forensic chemist
6.
Why was the evidence presented in court deemed unreliable?
A. It was presented by a civilian witness
B. There was a lack of continuity in handling
C. It was not chemically tested
D. The accused claimed frame-up
7.
What justification did the agents give for the absence of a
DOJ representative during inventory?
A. There was no available DOJ representative in the province
B. The DOJ declined to participate
C. The DOJ representative was late
D. They believed it was not required
8.
Which of the following is not a required witness during
the physical inventory of seized drugs?
A. Barangay official
B. Representative from media
C. Private prosecutor
D. DOJ representative
9.
How did the Supreme Court treat the inconsistencies in the
prosecution’s testimonies?
A. As material defects that favored conviction
B. As minor errors that did not affect the case
C. As irrelevant since a civilian testified
D. As sufficient to create reasonable doubt
10.
What is the primary reason the Supreme Court refused to
apply the presumption of regularity in favor of the law enforcers?
A. They lacked jurisdiction
B. It was a non-drug related offense
C. Clear breaches in mandatory procedure were present
D. The accused admitted the crime
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb573-2230-800a-aa92-31f850839027>
No comments:
Post a Comment