25/02/2026
Insulating Witnesses and Marked Money: Reaffirming Chain of Custody in People v. Uyson
G.R. No. 270327, October 06, 2025, J. Inting
Facts
On 10 September 2020, the QCPD SDEU conducted a buy‑bust operation against “Amo,” later identified as Harley Uyson, along Ilocos Sur Street, Bago Bantay, Quezon City. A poseur‑buyer, PCpl Mallari, together with a confidential informant, met Uyson in front of No. 168 Ilocos Sur Street, where Uyson accepted PHP 500 marked money and handed over three sachets of suspected shabu, one of which went to the poseur‑buyer. Uyson also produced another sachet from a pouch in his possession.
The sachet sold (0.13 g) and the sachet recovered (2.17 g) were immediately marked at the place of arrest in the presence of Uyson, a barangay kagawad, and a media representative, then inventoried and photographed. PCpl Mallari kept custody of the seized items, briefly presented them to the investigator for the preparation of requests, and personally brought them to the QCPD Crime Laboratory. The forensic chemist later found both specimens positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The RTC acquitted Uyson in two “delivery” cases for failure to present the corpus delicti but convicted him of illegal sale (0.13 g, Sec. 5) and illegal possession (2.17 g, Sec. 11) of shabu under RA 9165. The CA affirmed the convictions in full. Uyson elevated the case, arguing that the chain of custody was broken and that the absence of the CI and the timing of the inventory and turnover were fatal to the prosecution.
Issues
1. Whether the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether there was substantial compliance with the chain‑of‑custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, considering:
- the non‑presentation of the confidential informant;
- the fact that insulating witnesses were present only at the marking and inventory stage, and not during the actual arrest;
- the roughly three‑hour interval between inventory and submission of the seized items to the crime laboratory;
- the lack of a formal turnover of the seized drugs to the investigating officer; and
- the non‑presentation of the forensic chemist as a witness.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed Uyson’s convictions for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. It held that all elements of both offenses were established and that the chain of custody was sufficiently shown to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.
The Court ruled that the presence of an elected public official and a media representative during the immediate post‑seizure marking and inventory satisfied Section 21. It clarified that the CI’s testimony is not indispensable and that a three‑hour lapse before submission to the crime laboratory does not, by itself, break the chain of custody.
The Court further acknowledged that there was no formal turnover of the drugs to the investigating officer and that the forensic chemist did not testify. Nonetheless, it held that these deviations did not break the chain because:
- the apprehending officer retained physical custody of the drugs from seizure, through the brief presentation to the investigator, up to their personal delivery to the crime laboratory, as reflected in the chain‑of‑custody form; and
- the subsequent handling—from forensic chemist, to evidence custodian, to the RTC—was documented through the Chemistry Report, the chain‑of‑custody documentation, and stipulations made in lieu of the chemist’s testimony.
Relying on jurisprudence such as People v. Hernandez, Casilang, and Macaspac, the Court treated these as substantial compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, sufficient to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu.
Application
Jurisprudence dictates that the following links of the chain of custody must be established:
1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
2. The turn-over of the seized illegal drug to the investigating officer;
3. The turn-over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
4. The turn-over and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court
On the first issue, the Court found that, for illegal sale, the identity of the buyer (PCpl Mallari) and seller (Uyson), the object (0.13 g of shabu), the consideration (PHP 500), and the consummated exchange were clearly established by the poseur‑buyer’s categorical testimony and supporting documents. Uyson was thus caught in flagrante selling shabu.
For illegal possession, Uyson was found in actual and conscious possession of another sachet (2.17 g) recovered from his pouch, with no showing of lawful authority and no credible explanation, satisfying the elements of knowing and voluntary possession. His denial and allegation of frame‑up were deemed weak and self‑serving, and could not prevail over the positive and consistent testimony of the police officers corroborated by documentary and physical evidence.
On the second issue, the Court applied Section 21 and the guidelines in Nisperos. It stressed that marking, inventory, and photographing must be done immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses, but that these insulating witnesses are not required to witness the exact moment of arrest or seizure. In Uyson’s case, the markings were placed and the inventory conducted at the place of arrest, in the presence of Uyson, a barangay kagawad, and a media representative, and were documented by an inventory receipt and photographs.
With respect to the second link, the Court recognized that the seized items were merely “presented” to the investigator and not formally turned over. However, because they remained in the physical custody of the apprehending officer, who personally delivered them to the crime laboratory as shown in the chain‑of‑custody form (complete with date, time, and signatures), the continuity of custody was not broken.
As to the third and fourth links, the Court held that the Chemistry Report and the documented movement of the sealed specimens—from forensic chemist, to evidence custodian, to the trial court—combined with the parties’ stipulations regarding the forensic chemist’s receipt of properly marked items and her positive findings for methamphetamine hydrochloride, were enough to establish these stages. The non‑presentation of the chemist was cured by these stipulations and documents.
Finally, the Court reiterated that the CI’s testimony would have been merely corroborative of the poseur‑buyer’s detailed account. Jurisprudence does not require the CI to be presented where the buy‑bust operation is already sufficiently proved by the testimonies of police operatives and documentary evidence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Uyson illegally sold 0.13 g and illegally possessed 2.17 g of shabu. The corpus delicti and the chain of custody were established with moral certainty, and no material break in the links was shown despite minor deviations from the ideal procedure. The appeal was denied, and the RTC and CA judgments convicting Uyson under Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 were affirmed in toto.
*Caveat: The material presented herein is based on a Supreme Court ruling. It is intended solely for academic and intellectual discourse and should not be construed as legal advice. The discussion aims to provide an analytical summary of the ruling and its implications within the framework of Philippine jurisprudence.*
