4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied) Strict observance of the chain of custody requirements ensures the seized items' integrity. When the integrity of the seized items cannot be trusted—as when there are procedural lapses in the chain of custody—the prosecution has failed to establish the corpus delicti. It has fallen short of proving an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, which engenders reasonable doubt on the accused's guilt. Nonetheless, in situations that render strict compliance impossible or impracticable, deviations from Section 21's requirements do not invalidate the seizure of illegal items. Noncompliance may be excused when "(a) there is a justifiable ground for such noncompliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved."[34] The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the items presented are authentic without any indication of tampering. In People v. Namil:[35] [B]efore substantial compliance with the procedure is permitted, not only must the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized be preserved, there must be a justifiable ground for its noncompliance in the first place. The prosecution has a two-fold duty of identifying any lapse in procedure and proving the existence of a sufficient reason why it was not strictly followed.[36] (Emphasis supplied) The first in the chain of custody's interconnected links is the marking stage, in which the arresting officer or poseur-buyer affixes "initials or other identifying signs on the seized items . . . in the presence of the accused shortly after arrest."[37] This crucial https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66117 5/12