Survey of Cases on Dangerous Drugs

Which of the following is NOT one of the four links in the chain of custody of drug evidence as recognized in jurisprudence under RA No. 9165?

• • A. Seizure and immediate marking of the item by the apprehending officer

• • B. Turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer

• • C. Delivery of the seized item to the forensic laboratory for examination

• • D. Public presentation of the seized item in a press conference before trial

2. The Implementing Rules of RA No. 9165 provide a "saving clause" for procedural lapses in handling seized drugs. What must the prosecution demonstrate for this leniency to apply?

• • A. That the case is considered high-profile enough to overlook procedure

• • B. That at least one police officer testifies to the chain of custody

• • C. That there was a justifiable reason for deviating from the procedure and that the integrity of the evidence was preserved despite the lapse

• • D. That the accused did not object to the manner of handling the evidence

In a buy-bust operation, officers failed to mark the seized shabu at the scene and only marked and inventoried it later at the station with no valid explanation. According to Supreme Court rulings, what is the likely consequence of this lapse?

• • A. The evidence may be deemed compromised, potentially leading to an acquittal due to a break in the chain of custody

• • B. The evidence remains admissible as long as it was eventually marked and brought to court

• • C. The delay in marking is excused by the presumption of regularity in police operations

• • D. The chain of custody starts at the police station, so what happens at the scene is not critical

RA No. 9165 requires certain witnesses (e.g. an elected official, and representatives from the media and DOJ) to be present during the inventory of seized drugs. If these “insulating” witnesses were absent during the inventory, what have Supreme Court decisions required the prosecution to prove to avoid invalidating the evidence?

• • A. Nothing special – the presence of witnesses is optional if the seizure is witnessed by the accused

• • B. That a valid explanation excuses their absence and that earnest efforts were made to secure their presence, and that the integrity of the evidence was preserved despite their absence

• • C. That the defense was notified of the inventory in the witnesses’ absence

• • D. That the witnesses appeared at trial to confirm the identity of the evidence

Which of the following police practices has the Supreme Court deemed improper under the chain-of-custody rules in drug cases?

• • A. Failing to bring the required inventory witnesses to the scene of the arrest and only summoning them after the seizure was completed

• • B. Marking the confiscated drugs immediately at the place of arrest in the presence of the accused

• • C. Conducting the physical inventory and taking photographs of the drugs right after seizure

• • D. Having both a media representative and an elected official witness the inventory of the seized drugs

Under Section 21 of RA No. 9165 (the chain-of-custody requirement), where should the inventory and photographing of seized drugs be conducted in a warrantless seizure, and when is it permissible to do it elsewhere?

• • A. It must be done at the place of seizure immediately after confiscation, unless conducting it there is not practicable or is unsafe – in which case it may be done at the nearest police station or office, provided a credible, specific justification is given

• • B. It should always be done at the police station for better documentation, regardless of conditions at the scene

• • C. It can be done at any location of the apprehending officers’ choosing without need of explanation, as long as it is on the same day

• • D. It must only be done at a Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) office, as a matter of standard procedure

The elements required to prove the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs include all of the following EXCEPT:

• • A. The accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug

• • B. Such possession was not authorized by law (no legal permit or prescription)

• • C. The accused had knowledge of the possession and freely and consciously possessed the drug

• • D. Marked money used in a buy-bust operation was recovered from the accused at the time of arrest

According to jurisprudence (e.g. People v. Andanar and Garbo, 2021), what must be shown to convict a person of maintaining a drug den under RA No. 9165?

• • A. That the place in question was being used regularly or habitually for illegal drug activity, not merely a one-time or isolated drug transaction

• • B. That at least one drug sale or use incident (even if isolated) occurred in the place, involving the accused

• • C. That the accused was present during a raid where drugs were found on the premises

• • D. That the accused is the owner of the property where a single drug transaction took place

True or False: In drug cases, the seized drug itself is considered the corpus delicti of the offense, and the prosecution must prove with certainty that the substance presented in court is the very same one seized from the accused.

(a)  

True or False: Strict compliance with the chain-of-custody requirements (Section 21 of RA No. 9165) is merely a technicality; as long as the accused is caught with drugs, minor deviations from the procedure do not affect the admissibility or integrity of the evidence.

(a)