327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination
Could the prosecution's failure to strictly follow the
chain of custody in a drug-related case lead to the acquittal of the accused?
Case Title: People of the Philippines vs. Alvin
Galisim y Garcia,
*G.R. No. 231305, September 11, 2019
Facts of the Case:
Alvin Galisim y Garcia (appellant) was convicted for
violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), for selling and possessing methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu). The case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by
the Philippine National Police on February 19, 2011. During the operation, PO3
Julius Maynigo, acting as the poseur-buyer, allegedly purchased a sachet of
shabu from Galisim. Upon arrest, another sachet of shabu and a .30 caliber
ammunition were found in Galisim's possession.
At the trial, the prosecution presented police officers who
testified about the buy-bust operation. Galisim, in his defense, claimed that
he was wrongfully arrested while on his way to buy milk for his child. He
alleged that he was beaten by the police officers and coerced into signing
documents without fully understanding them.
The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, in its judgment on
December 12, 2013, convicted Galisim of both charges and sentenced him to life
imprisonment for illegal sale and imprisonment for 12 to 15 years for illegal
possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on August 16, 2016.
The Primary Issue:
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court’s
decision despite alleged procedural lapses in the handling of the corpus
delicti, particularly concerning the chain of custody of the illegal drugs?
Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court acquitted Alvin Galisim. It ruled
that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the
seized drugs. The Court noted several crucial breaches in the process,
including:
- Failure
to strictly comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 - The law requires the
immediate inventory and photographing of the confiscated items in the
presence of the accused and representatives from the media, Department of
Justice, and an elected official. The buy-bust team failed to secure the
presence of these representatives and did not provide any justifiable
reason for their absence.
- Delayed
turnover of the seized items to the crime laboratory - There was a
13-hour delay in submitting the seized drugs to the forensic chemist,
which created doubt about the integrity and identity of the confiscated
drugs.
- Failure
to present the forensic chemist’s testimony - The prosecution did not
present the forensic chemist who examined the drugs to testify on the
proper handling and preservation of the evidence, thus leaving a
significant gap in the chain of custody.
Because of these lapses, the integrity of the corpus delicti
was compromised, leading to Galisim's acquittal.
Dispositive Portion:
The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed the decision
of the Court of Appeals, and ordered the immediate release of Alvin Galisim y
Garcia from custody, unless he is being held for another lawful cause. The
Court also directed the Bureau of Corrections to submit a report on the
appellant's release within five days.
Should technical lapses, such as the failure to comply with
the chain of custody, always result in acquittal, even if there is overwhelming
evidence of the accused’s guilt?
Important Doctrines:
- Chain
of Custody Rule:
The prosecution must prove the integrity of the drug item from its seizure to its presentation in court, which includes marking, inventory, and turnover. The absence of proper documentation and handling may result in acquittal. - Presumption
of Regularity in the Performance of Duty:
This presumption cannot override the requirement for strict compliance with legal procedures, especially in drug cases where the penalty is severe. - Saving
Clause of R.A. 9165:
While non-compliance with the chain of custody rule may be excused under certain conditions, the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for any deviation. Without such a reason, the evidence may be considered tainted.
Classification of the Case: 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)
Read the full text here
🎓 In this content, we
delve into the jurisprudence of People of the Philippines vs. Alvin Galisim
y Garcia, G.R. No. 231305, promulgated on September 11, 2019. This case is
essential in Criminal Law, particularly in drug-related offenses under R.A.
9165. Law students and bar examinees, this breakdown aims to help you recall
and master the most crucial doctrines, especially on the chain of
custody rule.
NATURE OF THE CASE: Criminal Law – Violation of
Sections 5 & 11, R.A. 9165 (Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs)
Date of Promulgation: September 11, 2019
📌 BRIEF SUMMARY:
Galisim was arrested in a buy-bust operation involving ₱200
worth of shabu. The RTC convicted him; the CA affirmed. However, the Supreme
Court acquitted him due to fatal breaches in the chain of custody,
casting doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.
❓ Should flawed police
procedure negate otherwise incriminating evidence? Comment your insights below!
🔟 DOCTRINES FOR SOCIAL
MEDIA POSTING (w/ Sources from Supreme Court Decision):
- Chain
of Custody Rule is Essential
The prosecution must account for every link in the transfer of seized drugs to preserve integrity. Any break is fatal.
📌 [G.R. No. 231305] - Four
Links in Chain of Custody
Seizure and marking → turnover to investigating officer → forensic chemist → presentation in court. All must be proven.
📌 [People v. Dahil, cited in G.R. No. 231305] - Presence
of Witnesses is Mandatory
Media, DOJ, and elected official must witness inventory and marking unless justified.
📌 [Section 21, R.A. 9165; G.R. No. 231305] - Non-Compliance
Without Justification is Fatal
Deviation from required procedures without valid justification breaks the chain of custody.
📌 [People v. Macud, cited in G.R. No. 231305] - Photographs
Must Be Taken at Scene
Photos of drugs must be taken immediately at the place of arrest, not at the station.
📌 [People v. Adobar, cited in G.R. No. 231305] - Delayed
Turnover Creates Doubt
A 13-hour delay in submission to the crime lab created suspicion on possible tampering.
📌 [TSN & findings in G.R. No. 231305] - Presumption
of Regularity is Not Absolute
Presumption cannot override clear violations of mandatory procedure.
📌 [People v. Cabiles, cited in G.R. No. 231305] - Stipulation
Must Include Integrity-Safeguards
If forensic chemist’s testimony is waived, parties must stipulate on handling precautions.
📌 [People v. Ubungen, cited in G.R. No. 231305] - PDEA
Guidelines Must Be Followed Strictly
Procedures outlined by law and IRR should not be treated as optional in prosecution.
📌 [Section 21, IRR of RA 9165] - Life
Imprisonment Demands Stronger Safeguards
Severe penalties warrant strict observance of procedure to avoid wrongful convictions.
📌 [G.R. No. 231305]
📌 FAQs:
Q1: What is the core issue in this case?
A: Whether breaches in the chain of custody warrant
acquittal. The SC ruled yes.
Q2: What did the lower courts decide?
A: RTC convicted Galisim; CA affirmed the decision.
Q3: Why did the SC acquit Galisim?
A: Repeated breaches in the chain of custody and failure to
justify procedural lapses.
Q4: Is the presence of media, DOJ, and officials always
required?
A: Yes, unless the police provide a justifiable reason for
their absence.
Q5: Can technical lapses nullify strong evidence?
A: Yes, especially when the integrity of the evidence is
compromised.
📌 DISCLAIMER:
This is an educational video made using premium AI
and does not guarantee complete accuracy. Always refer to official Supreme
Court sources for legal reliance.
🔗 Follow us and explore
more content:
📚 Law Reviewers Store: https://www.raket.ph/lawrequisitesph
🎵 TikTok: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphtiktok
📘 Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphfb
▶️ YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesph
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb865-2204-800a-9609-cfe783b4040a>
🎓 Welcome to this
short legal quizzer on a landmark Supreme Court decision—People of the
Philippines vs. Alvin Galisim y Garcia, G.R. No. 231305, promulgated on
September 11, 2019. This case falls under Criminal Law, specifically
involving the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.
Nature of the Case: Violation of the law on dangerous
drugs (sale and possession of shabu)
Date of Promulgation: September 11, 2019
Brief Summary:
Galisim was arrested during a buy-bust operation for
allegedly selling ₱200 worth of shabu. He was convicted by the RTC and his
conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court
acquitted him, ruling that there were fatal lapses in the chain of
custody, which undermined the integrity of the evidence presented against
him.
This quiz aims to test your understanding of key doctrines
and factual issues surrounding the case. The answer key will be provided at
the end of the video—so make sure to stay tuned and test your knowledge!
📝 QUIZZER: 10 EASY HOTS
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
1. What was the main reason the Supreme Court
acquitted the accused in People vs. Galisim?
A. He was found not guilty by the police
B. There was no laboratory test conducted
C. The chain of custody of the drug evidence was broken
D. The accused provided a strong alibi
2. What amount of money was used in the alleged drug
transaction?
A. ₱100
B. ₱200
C. ₱500
D. ₱1,000
3. Why is strict compliance with evidence handling
procedures essential in drug cases?
A. To satisfy media coverage
B. To prevent delays in court
C. To ensure the evidence is not tampered with
D. To comply with police quotas
4. Which of the following best describes "chain
of custody" in drug-related cases?
A. A list of police assignments
B. Continuous tracking and documentation of seized items
C. A record of court hearings
D. The criminal’s confession
5. In the case, which location was used for photographing
the confiscated evidence?
A. Scene of the arrest
B. Barangay hall
C. Police station
D. Prosecutor’s office
6. Which witnesses are required to be present during
inventory of confiscated drugs?
A. Any neighbor and barangay tanod
B. Media representative, DOJ official, and elected public
official
C. Forensic chemist, clerk of court, and police chief
D. Accused’s family and legal counsel
7. What did the forensic chemist fail to do,
according to the Supreme Court’s findings?
A. Testify in court
B. Submit a report
C. Conduct a polygraph test
D. Turn over the evidence to the defense
8. How long was the delay before the drug evidence
was submitted to the crime lab?
A. 3 hours
B. 6 hours
C. 13 hours
D. 24 hours
9. What is the impact of failing to justify the
absence of required inventory witnesses?
A. Evidence becomes inadmissible
B. Trial must restart
C. Charges are upgraded
D. Accused is transferred to another court
10. What penalty was originally imposed by the RTC
before the acquittal?
A. Community service
B. Life imprisonment and a fine
C. Probation
D. House arrest
No comments:
Post a Comment