Criminal Law, 2019 Bar — Question A.8-a

ESSAY

After a successful entrapment operation by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Mr. D, a known drug pusher, was arrested on January 15, 2019 for having been caught in flagrante delicto selling a pack of shabu, a prohibited drug, to the poseur-buyer. Consequently, Mr. D was frisked by the arresting officer, and aluminum foils, plastic lighters, and another plastic sachet of shabu were obtained from him. The items were marked immediately upon confiscation, and they were likewise inventoried and photographed at the place of arrest. Throughout the process, a media representative was able to witness the conduct of the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items in the presence of Mr. D. Mr. D was then charged with the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. In defense, he lamented that the chain of custody procedure under Section 21, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, was not followed because only a media representative was present. In response, the prosecution maintained that the said media representative was a very credible reporter and as such, the presence of any other witness was unnecessary. (a) Was the chain of custody procedure validly complied with in this case? If not, was the deviation from such procedure justified? Explain. (3%)

You can write freely without an account. Sign in to reveal the suggested answer and track your progress.