You are on page 1of 6

In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the laws own starting

perspective on the status of the accused in all criminal prosecutions, he is


presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond
reasonable doubt.[29] The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such
presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. In so
doing, the prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the
weakness of the defense. And if the prosecution fails to meet the required amount
of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf.
In which case, the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be
acquitted.[30]
[29]
[30]

People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 207.
People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 207.
In Malillin v. People,[22] the Court explained the importance of the
chain
of
custody:
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates
that the elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be
established with moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is
not authorized by law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the
very corpusdelicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to
a judgment of conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is that the
identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Be that as
it may, the mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to
create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a
finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the
substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance
offered in court as exhibit must also be established with the same
unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The
chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures
that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link
in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is

offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it
was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change
in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the
chain to have possession of the same.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard
because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of
custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real
evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its
condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness
has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise
obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the
exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering
without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not
dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of
custody rule.
Malillin v. People G.R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 631-634.

The conduct of the buy-bust operations was peppered with defects, which
raises doubts on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items from accused-appellant.
First, there were material inconsistencies in the marking of the seized items.
According to his testimony, PO2 Gasid used the initials of the complete name,
including the middle initial, of accused-appellant in order to mark the confiscated
sachets. The marking was done immediately after Umipang was handcuffed.
However, a careful perusal of the testimony of PO2 Gasid would reveal that

his prior knowledge of the complete initials of accused-appellant, standing for the
latters full name, was not clearly established. Thus, doubt arises as to when the
plastic sachets were actually marked, as shown by PO2 Gasids testimony:
To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved, the proper chain of custody of the seized items must be shown. The
Court explained in People v. Malillin33 how the chain of custody or movement of
the seized evidence should be maintained and why this must be shown by
evidence, viz:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up
to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched
the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and
what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in
the chain to have possession of the same.
Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).

DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENT

The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond


reasonable doubt. They miserably failed to prove the existence of the corpus delicti
of the offense charged which is the kitchen knife.

The Accused was charged of violation of Section 26 Act No. 1780 which
states: It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed about his person any
bowie knife, dirk, dagger, kris, or other deadly weapon The very corpus delicti
of the offense charged would then be the deadly weapon, in this case, the kitchen
knife.

In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the kitchen knife which was
allegedly thrown by the accused and confiscated by the arresting officer was the
same kitchen knife presented by the exhibit custodian. The chain in the custody of
the said kitchen knife was not duly proved. The arresting officer failed to identify
in open court the kitchen knife which he allegedly seized. He also failed to mark
the alleged kitchen knife. There is also no showing to whom he endorsed the same.
A doubt is now raised whether or not the kitchen knife presented by the exhibit
custodian was the same one confiscated by the arresting officer from the Accused.
In fact, there would now be a doubt as to whether there was any kitchen knife at all
confiscated by the arresting officer from the possession of the accused.

Considering that this is a criminal offense, it is imperative for the police


officers to authenticate any or all evidence in the course of the arrest or seizure in
order to avoid tampering or substitution. It is of public knowledge that kitchen
knives are mass produced and are readily available in the market. As such, it would
be very easy to claim that a person possessed a knife and then produce the same.

In the case of People versus Monalyn Cervantes (G.R. No. 181494, March
17, 2009), citing G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008 which in turn cited American
jurisprudence, the court ruled:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody


requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link
in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is
offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched
the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where
it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no
change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone
not in the chain to have possession of the same.

In the case at hand, the arresting officer not only failed to mark the kitchen
knife but also failed to describe the condition of the same upon endorsement. After
which, the link was broken. Thereafter, the kitchen knife came into the possession
of the exhibit custodian. The custodian alleged that it was turned over to him by
one PO2 Pedregoza who, however, did not testify in open court to prove that it was
the same knife she turned over to the custodian and from whom she took the same.
The break in the chain of custody now creates a doubt as to whether the kitchen

knife presented in court was actually the same kitchen knife allegedly coming from
the Accused.
CONCLUSION

The corpus delicti in the offense of concealment of deadly weapon is the


weapon itself, in this case the kitchen knife. However, the prosecution miserably
failed to prove the existence of the same because the arresting officer himself
failed to identify the kitchen knife allegedly taken from the accused. Moreover, the
chain of custody of the said evidence was not duly proved. Such failures create a
grievous doubt as to whether or not the accused in this case really had in his
possession or concealed in his body a deadly weapon, which is the kitchen knife.
In fine, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.

You might also like