Republic Act 9165 as amended by

Republic Act 10460, Section 21

Chain of Custody”
 Chain of Custody

In general, the term Chain of Custody of Evidence refers to the links and
order in which a piece of evidence has been handled, from the time of
its confiscation to its presentation in court.

It is proven by a document or documents that establish the links, and by

the testimonies of the persons and/or agencies who handled the
evidence. Establishing the chain of custody of evidence is required in drug
cases.

There is no room for doubt, and it must be established with certainty that
the object being presented in court is the same object confiscated from
the accused, if he or she was arrested through a valid warrantless arrest,
or the same object found in his or her property which was subjected to a
search through a validly issued Search Warrant.
Purpose of the Chain of Custody Rule in Drug Cases

“To ensure that the drug specimen presented in court as

evidence against the accused is the same material seized from
him or that, at the very least, a dangerous drug was actually
taken from his possession.” (People vs. Moner, G.R. No. 202206,
March 5, 2018).

“To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral

certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link
of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized
up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime.”
(People vs. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, January 22, 2020).
 People vs. Pablo Arposeple, et. al.
(G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017)

First - the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug

recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second - the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officer;
Third - the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth - the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court.”
Requirements and Procedures to be Observed under the Chain of
Custody Rule in Drug Cases

 Marking
 Inventory
 Documentation
These requirements and procedures apply to warrantless seizures
as well as seizures through search warrants. However, in the case
of seizures through search warrants, the marking, physical
inventory and photographing shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served.
 MARKING
1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of
the drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, mark, inventory and photograph the same;
2) The marking is the placing by the apprehending officer or the
poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the item/s
seized.

In People vs. Santos, G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018, it was
held that “Marking” is the placing by the apprehending officer of
some distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on
the items seized.
 MARKING

3.) The marking shall be done immediately, in the presence of

the violator, at the place where the items were seized or at the
nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable.
 INVENTORY and PHOTOGRAPHING
4.) The physical inventory and photographing shall be
conducted in the same nearest police station or nearest office
of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.

5.) The physical inventory and photographing must be made in

the presence of the following:

a) The accused or the person/s from whom such items were

confiscated and/or seized , or his/her representative or
counsel;
b) An elected public official; and,
c) A representative from the media or the National
Prosecution Service (NPS);
 Chain of Custody

6.) The persons mentioned in no.5 shall be required to sign

the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. In
case of their refusal to sign, it shall be stated “refused to sign”
above their names in the certificate of inventory of the
apprehending or seizing officer.

7.) Noncompliance with the 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.
 Chain of Custody

8.). The chain of custody of evidence shall indicate the time

and place of marking, the names of officers who marked,
inventoried photographed and sealed the seized items, who
took custody and received the evidence from one officer to
another within the chain, and further indicating the time
and date every time the transfer of custody of the same
evidence were made in the course of safekeeping until
submitted to laboratory personnel for forensic laboratory
examination.
 Chain of Custody

9.) The chain of custody of the seized/confiscated items

received from the apprehending officer/team, and
examined in the forensic or crime laboratory shall be
observed , where it shall document the chain of custody
each time a specimen is handled, transferred or
presented in court until its disposal, and every individual
in the chain of custody shall be identified following the
laboratory control and chain of custody form.
 Chain of Custody

10) Any justification or explanation in cases of

noncompliance with the requirements of Section
21(1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly
stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the
apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps
taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized/confiscated items.
 Nisperos vs People G.R. No. 250927
November 29, 2022

Facts: In June 2015, Mario Nisperos was arrested in a buy-bust

operation. During trial, the DOJ representative admitted that
he was thirty minutes late and that when he was first shown
the alleged drug items seized from Nisperos, they were
unmarked.
 Nisperos vs People G.R. No. 250927
November 29, 2022

Issue: Whether the delayed conduct of inventory in the

presence of the mandatory witness as prescribed in Section 21
of R.A. 9165 as amended will invalidate the operation that
would result to the acquittal of the accused
 Nisperos vs People G.R. No. 250927
November 29, 2022
Held: Yes, the accused should be acquitted. Firstly, the
MARKING, which is the first step in the chain of custody,
must be done immediately after seizure. The marking must be
done in the presence of the offender except if the offender
eluded arrest. Here, the drug evidence was not immediately
marked because, as admitted by the DOJ representative, the
drug evidence was still unmarked when they were shown to
him.
 Nisperos vs People G.R. No. 250927
November 29, 2022
Held: Secondly, the inventory must be done immediately after
the seizure and marking. The inventory must be done in the
presence of the insulating witnesses. Here, the DOJ
representative was late. Hence, the requirement that the
inventory must be made immediately after the seizure was not
complied with.
 Nisperos vs People G.R. No. 250927
November 29, 2022
Held: Given that the inventory was done at the place of seizure
and did not need to be performed at the nearest police station
or the nearest office of the apprehending team, the team should
have been able to conduct the same immediately after the
seizure, were it not for the tardy arrival of the DOJ
representative.
 Nisperos vs People G.R. No. 250927
November 29, 2022
Held: No justifiable ground was proffered to excuse the
belated marking. Since the first link of the chain was not even
established, We find it unnecessary to discuss the other links
of the chain. Verily, THERE WAS NO CHAIN TO EVEN
SPEAK OF.
 PEOPLE vs ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, September 04, 2018
Facts: Based on a report of a confidential informant (CI) it was found out that
a certain "Romy" has been engaged in the sale of prohibited drugs. A buy-bust
operation was later conducted that resulted to the apprehension of the accused,
however despite exerting efforts to secure the attendance of the representative
from the media and barangay officials, nobody arrived to witness the
inventory-taking. Also the Inventory Receipt of the confiscated items was not
signed by an elected public official and the representatives of the Department
of Justice (DOJ) and the media as witnesses.
 PEOPLE vs ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, September 04, 2018

Issue: Whether the absence of the mandatory witnesses during the inventory
and without establishing justifiable grounds coupled with a statement on the
steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items warrant the
dismissal of the case?
 PEOPLE vs ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, September 04, 2018

Held: Yes, the case should be dismissed. The Court stressed in People v.
Vicente Sipin y De Castro, the prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid
cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165, as amended.

It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that
during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying
any perceived deviations from the requirements of law.
 PEOPLE vs ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, September 04, 2018

Held: Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately

explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on
evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending
officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this
ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they
took to preserve the integrity of the seized items.
 PEOPLE vs ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, September 04, 2018
Held: Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts
to contact the required witnesses are UNACCEPTABLE as justified grounds
for non- compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police
officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they
have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time
of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the
necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to
strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165
 People vs. Alex Baluyot
(G.R. No. 243390, October 5, 2020)

Mere statements of unavailability of the witnesses given by the

apprehending officers are not justifiable reasons for non-
compliance with the requirement. This is because the
apprehending officers usually have sufficient time, from the
moment they received information about the alleged illegal
activities until the time of the arrest, to prepare for the buy-bust
operation that necessarily includes the procurement of three (3)
witnesses. If one of the individuals invited refuses to participate
as witness, the apprehending officers can still invite another
individual to become a witness.
 People vs. Jerome E. Cabrera, et. al.
(G.R. No. 232072, January 12, 2021)

It is evident from the foregoing that the insulating witnesses

from the media, the DOJ, and the local government, were all
absent during the apprehension of accused-appellants and the
alleged seizure of the dangerous drugs at the house of …….

This is a violation of the mandatory requirement under Section

21 of R.A. No. 9165 that such witnesses must be present also
during the seizure of the dangerous drugs to safeguard against
the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the evidence.
 People vs. Pablo Arposeple, et. al.
(G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017)

First - the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second - the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer;
Third - the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth - the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court.”
 PEOPLE vs JOSE BENNY VILLOJAN, JR., July 22, 2019
Facts: Jose Benny Villojan y Besmonte was on the drug watchlist of
San Jose Police Force in Antique. On April 25, 2012, the Police Force
conducted the buy bust operation on the accused that resulted to the
apprehension of the latter. Based on the facts given in the case, the
request for laboratory examination was issued by a certain PI Jose
Partisala. By virtue of such request PO2 Baldevia, the apprehending
officer transfer the custody of the drugs to the Forensic Chemist.
 PEOPLE vs JOSE BENNY VILLOJAN, JR., July 22, 2019

Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove appellant's guilt of violation

RA 9165 despite the absence of 2nd link in the Chain of Custody?
 PEOPLE vs JOSE BENNY VILLOJAN, JR., July 22, 2019

Held: No, the guilt of the accused was not established due to a fatal
and material defect enshrined in section 21 of RA. 9165 as amended
by RA. 10640. Conspicuously, missing from PO2 Baldevia's sworn
statement and testimony are the material details of the supposed turn-
over of the seized drugs to the investigating officer at the police
station before their submission for laboratory examination.
 PEOPLE vs JOSE BENNY VILLOJAN, JR., July 22, 2019
Held: The second link involves the turn-over of the confiscated drugs to the
police station, the recording of the incident, and the preparation of the
necessary documents such as the request for laboratory examination of the
seized drugs. Since it is not remote that the handling police officer came in
contact with the seized drugs during this procedure, it is, therefore, necessary
that such officer/s be identified and accounted for and made to explain about
the steps he/she/they had undertaken to ensure that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the illegal drugs were not compromised while in
his/her/their possession.
 PEOPLE vs JOSE BENNY VILLOJAN, JR., July 22, 2019
Held: Notably, records bear the request for laboratory examination issued by a
certain PI Jose Partisala. According to PO2 Baldevia, she presented this
request including the seized items to the crime laboratory. And yet, neither PI
Partisala nor the investigating officer testified in court to shed light on their
participation in the handling of the seized drugs. Such deviation from the
prescribed procedure is fatal to the prosecution's case for it raises serious
doubts on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
illegal drugs.
 PEOPLE vs Kevin Dayap, July 4, 2022
Facts: Accused-appellant Dayap was subjected to a buy bust operation on July
24, 2016. The sale was consummated and the accused was apprehended.

The arresting and seizing officer personally brought the plastic sachets to the
Provincial Laboratory Office and were received by forensic chemist
 PEOPLE vs Kevin Dayap, July 4, 2022

Issue: Whether Section 21 of R.A. 9165 has been validly complied

 PEOPLE vs Kevin Dayap, July 4, 2022
Held: No, The integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly
seized from the accused-appellant were not properly preserved in compliance
with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended.
Indeed, PO2 Casais had possession of the shabu from the time of confiscation
of the subject drugs until turnover for laboratory examination. However, it is
unclear whether the second link was sufficiently established. The second link
in the chain of custody pertains to the turnover of the seized drugs by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer.
 People vs. Pablo Arposeple, et. al.
(G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017)

First - the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second - the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officer;
Third - the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to
the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth - the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court.”
 PEOPLE vs Valencia G.R. No. 250610 July 10, 2023
Facts: Accused was apprehended by police officer Panggoy in a buy bust
operation in the port of Dumaguete.

The drug confiscated from the accused was marked "FL V /RA-BB-01-16-16

Due to the number of large vehicles exiting the port, the team held the
inventory and photographing of the evidence at the Dumaguete City Police
Station.
 PEOPLE vs Valencia G.R. No. 250610 July 10, 2023
Facts: The Chemist received the sealed brown envelope at the crime
laboratory.

The Chemist noticed that there was discrepancy in the marking between the
contents of the envelope and the letter request. The Chemist allowed Panggoy
to alter the marking stated in the letter from "FL V /RA-BB-01 -16-2016" to
"FLV/RA-BB-01-16-16.
 PEOPLE vs Valencia G.R. No. 250610 July 10, 2023
Issue: Whether the non compliance of the conduct of inventory at the place
where the drugs were confiscated without raising and proving justifiable
reason and minimal alteration in the document representing the corpus delicti
warrants the dismissal of the case
 PEOPLE vs Valencia G.R. No. 250610 July 10, 2023
Held: Yes, the case should be dismissed. The taking of inventory and
photographing was conducted at the police station and not at the place of arrest
or seizure.

Panggoy offered that they did these processes at the police station because
large vehicles were exiting the port. Aside from this generic statement, there
was no sufficient explanation as to how the exiting vehicles prevented them
from taking photographs and doing physical inventory where the arrest and
seizure happened.
 PEOPLE vs Valencia G.R. No. 250610 July 10, 2023
Held: Also, records state that the Chemist received the Letter Request and
specimen for forensic examination but acknowledged that the marking in the
specimen did not match the marking indicated in the Letter Request.

The seized drugs had the marking "FL V-RA-06-16-16." During the direct
examination of Panggoy, however, he stated that he marked the item as "FL V-
RA-06-16-2016.
 PEOPLE vs Valencia G.R. No. 250610 July 10, 2023
Held: Despite the discrepancy, the Chemist made the fatal mistake of allowing
Panggoy to alter the marking stated in the Letter Request

While Panggoy was responsible as seizing officer and evidence custodian, he

had no authority to modify the Letter Request reflecting the chain of custody.
Otherwise, it would be very easy to manipulate the paper trail recording the
movement of the corpus delicti.
 PEOPLE vs Valencia G.R. No. 250610 July 10, 2023
Held: This error became apparent in the third link of the chain of custody, or
during the transfer of the illegal drugs from the investigating officer to the
forensic chemist.
 People vs. Pablo Arposeple, et. al.
(G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017)

First - the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second - the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officer;
Third - the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth - the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
from the forensic chemist to the court.”
 People vs Dayap G.R. No. 248531. July 4, 2022
There was negligence in this case with regard to the fourth link. As a rule, the
forensic chemist must testify to show compliance with the fourth link. In this
case the chemist was not presented before the court in lieu of the parties
stipulation to dispense with the attendance of the police chemist
 People vs Dayap G.R. No. 248531. July 4, 2022
As a rule, the police chemist who examines a seized substance should
ordinarily testify that they received the seized article as marked, properly
sealed and intact; that they resealed it after examination of the content; and
that they placed their own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be
tampered pending trial.
 People vs Dayap G.R. No. 248531. July 4, 2022
The Court has instructed that in order to properly dispense with the testimony
of the forensic chemist, the following information must be included in the
agreed stipulations by the parties:
(1) they received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact;
(2) they resealed it after examination of the content;
(3) they placed their own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be
tampered pending trial.
 People vs Dayap G.R. No. 248531. July 4, 2022
In case any of the foregoing stipulations are lacking, the fourth link cannot be
proven.

This information is crucial in addressing allegations that the drugs seized were
tampered with, or compromised at any stage of the chain of custody. Thus, this
Court finds that the fourth link was not established with moral certainty.
 Summary
In buy-bust operation Four Links as a general rule must be established for successful
prosecution under RA. 9165 as amended.

In case of any deviation from the procedure, there must be a justifiable ground for non
compliance and it should be sufficiently explained and proven before the court.

Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and nothing else can eclipse the hypothesis of
guiltlessness. And this burden is met not by bestowing distrust on the innocence of the
accused but by obliterating all doubts as to his culpability. ( Malillin vs People, April 30,
2008)
THANK YOU!

SASP ALEXANDER Q. SUAREZ

Rule on the Destruction and Disposal of
Seized Dangerous Drugs, Other
Substances, and Instruments Prior to
the Filing of an Information
(A.M. No. 21-02-01-SC)
PRIOR TO THE FILING OF AN INFORMATION
I. A. With Search Warrant

The application for the destruction and disposal of

the seized dangerous drugs and related
paraphernalia shall be filed by –

Who – 1. Law enforcement agent or

2. Prosecutor

Where - Before the court which issued the search

warrant immediately after the seizure.
B. Without Search Warrant

The application for the destruction and disposal of the

seized dangerous drugs and related paraphernalia shall be
filed by –

Who – 1. Law enforcement agent or

2. Prosecutor

Where - Before the court which has territorial jurisdiction

over the case and the place where the dangerous drugs,
other substances, and instruments were found and seized.
With or without search warrant, the
compliance with Sec. 21(1), Article II of R.A.
9165, as amended by R.A. 10640 is required-

• Proper documentation
• Conduct of physical inventory
• Photographs of the seized items.
A Judge shall conduct an ocular inspection of the
seized articles within 72 hours from the time the
application is filed if –

•The seized drugs amount to 1 kilogram or more,

or

•If the seized instruments and equipment cannot

be physically brought to court.
Within 24 hours from the conduct of the ocular inspection-

A. The court shall order the retention of a representative

sample of the seized drugs which shall be kept in the
forensic laboratory of the operating unit which seized
the drugs.
B. In cases where the seized drugs are physically brought to
the court, the court shall order the retention of the
representative sample of the seized drugs also within 24
hours.
Witnesses required in the taking of the representative
samples:

•The person from whom the items were seized; or his or her
representative; or counsel;

•The elected public official who witnessed the physical

inventory and photographing of the seized drugs;

•An official from the National Prosecution Service or a

representative from the media;

•Law enforcement agent/s who seized the drugs; and

•Forensic laboratory personnel.

D. After the taking of representative samples –
1. The court shall order the immediate destruction
and disposal of the remaining seized drugs or
instruments and equipment.
2. Prior to the actual destruction and disposal, the
seized drugs shall be immediately sent and
delivered to the Drug Forensic Center of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
3. The above cited witnesses to the taking of the
representative sample shall also witness the actual
destruction of the seized drugs and instruments.
The absence of the person from whom the
items were seized, or his or her
representative or counsel during the actual
shall not affect the integrity and identity of
the seized dangerous drugs.
The applicant shall file a report to the court –

• When - within 24 hours from the

actual destruction and disposal
of the seized drugs and items.

• Attachments - Photographs and

video recordings of the destruction
and disposal process.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION FILED ALREADY

Criminal information is filed already before the court other

than the court that issued the search warrant or order the
destruction and disposal –

The records of the search warrant and order for destruction

and disposal, including attachment, shall be consolidated with
the court where the criminal information is filed.
In cases where no search
warrants were issued, the
criminal information shall be
filed before the court that
issued the order for destruction
and disposal.
PLEA BARGAINING
 PLEA BARGAINING

It is a process where the accused usually pleads

guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of
the counts of a multi-count indictment in return
for a lighter sentence than that for the graver
charge. [Black’s Law Dictionary 1037 (5th ed. 1979)]
 PLEA BARGAINING

In order for Plea Bargaining to be valid, the

consent of the Public Prosecutor representing
the State is MANDATORY.
 PLEA BARGAINING

Offer for plea bargaining is not only limited to

the pre-trial stage, but may be entertained by
the trial prosecutor at any stage of the
proceedings (including trial proper) before
rendition of judgment.
 Nurullaje Sayre vs. Hon. Dax Gonzaga Xenos
(G.R. Nos. 244413 and 244415-16, February 18, 2020)

A plea bargain still requires mutual agreement of

the parties and remains subject to the approval
of the court. The acceptance of an offer to plead
guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by
the accused as a matter of right but is a matter
addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the
trial court.
 Nurullaje Sayre vs. Hon. Dax Gonzaga Xenos
(G.R. Nos. 244413 and 244415-16, February 18, 2020)

The use of the word “MAY” in Sec 2, Rule 116 of

the Rules of Court signifies that the trial court
has discretion whether to allow the accused to
make a plea of guilty to a lesser offense.

Moreover, plea bargaining requires the consent

of the accused, offended party, and the
prosecutor.
 Nurullaje Sayre vs. Hon. Dax Gonzaga Xenos
(G.R. Nos. 244413 and 244415-16, February 18, 2020)

The DOJ’s Department Circular No. 27 did not

violate the rule-making authority of the Court,
as it merely serves as an internal guideline for
prosecutors to observe before they may give
their consent to the proposed plea bargaining.
 People vs. Edwin Reafor
(G.R. No. 247575, November 16, 2020)

A plea of guilty to a lesser offense, without the

consent of the prosecution, lacks one of the
requisites of a valid plea bargain, rendering the
same VOID. Hence, any judgment based on a
void plea bargaining is also void ab initio and
cannot be considered to have attained finality
for the simple reason that a void judgment has
no legality from its inception.
 People of the Philippines vs. Naci Borras
(G.R. No. 250295, March 15, 2021)

The conformity of the prosecutor to the proposed plea

bargaining in drugs cases is not optional, nay, to be
disregarded.

The prosecutor who represents the government is duty

bound to defend the public interests, threatened by
crime, to the point that it is as though he or she were
the person directly injured by the offense. Viewed in
this light, the consent of the offended party, i.e. the
State, will have to be secured from the prosecutor who
acts on its behalf.
 People vs Edgar Majingcar, et. al
(G.R. No. 249629, March 15, 2021)

In drug cases where there is no private offended

party, the consent of the prosecutor is the
operative act which vests discretion upon the
court to allow or reject the accused's proposal
to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Thus, where
this consent is withheld, no such discretion gets
vested in the court.
 Procedural Requirements for Allowable Plea
under DOJ Department Circular No. 27:

1. All offers for plea bargaining must be initiated in

writing.
2. Request for the court to order a drug dependency
assessment.
3. Offer for plea bargaining may be entertained at any
stage.
4. Express objection in open court for plea bargaining
going beyond DOJ guidelines.
5. All offers for plea bargaining should always be with
the approval of the Chief of Office.
 Formal Motion

All offers for plea bargaining must be initiated in

writing by way of a formal motion filed by the
accused in court. Thus, if an accused verbally
moves for plea bargaining, prosecutor should
move that they make their offer in writing.
 Drug Dependency Examination

Upon receipt of a proposal, the trial

prosecutor shall request the court to order
that a drug dependency assessment be
administered on the accused pursuant to
A.M. 18-03-16-SC.
 Drug Dependency Examination

A drug dependency examination is a procedure conducted by a

DOH-accredited physician to evaluate the extent of drug abuse of
a person and to determine whether he/she is a drug dependent
or not, which includes history taking, intake interview,
determination of the criteria for drug dependency, mental and
physical status, and detection of dangerous drugs in body
specimens through laboratory procedures. (Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No.3 Series of 2007)

The report from the drug dependency assessment shall be a

requirement for the prosecution before it consents to plea
bargaining.
 Reject Offer - Vigorous Objection On Record

When the court would insist on approving a

plea bargaining that is contrary or goes
beyond the DOJ guidelines, the trial
prosecutor should interpose his/her vigorous
objection in open court and manifest that the
state does not give its consent to plea
bargaining.
 Memorandum if After Trial on Merits

Should offer be made after the trial on the

merits, the trial prosecutor should prepare a
Memorandum to be submitted to his/her Chief
Prosecutor discussing whether or not the offer
should be accepted and the reasons thereto.
 PLEA BARGAINING

As regards plea bargaining for violation of Section

5 with respect to shabu et.al. (less than 5 grams)
and marijuana (less than 300 grams), acceptable
plea bargaining for the prosecution will be under
Section 11, par. 3.
 PLEA BARGAINING

As regards offer for plea bargain for violation of

Section 11 involving Marijuana (300 grams or
more), prosecution will reject the proposed
plea outright and continue with the
proceedings.
 PLEA BARGAINING

As regards offer for plea bargain for violation of

Section 11 involving shabu, opium, morphine,
heroin, cocaine, et. al. except Marijuana (5
grams or more), prosecution will reject the
proposed plea outright and continue with the
proceedings.
 PLEA BARGAINING

As regards plea bargaining for violation of Section 7, the

prosecution will only allow plea bargaining for visitors of
drug den. The acceptable plea bargaining for the
prosecution will be under Section 12 or Section 15.

For employees of the drug den, the prosecution cannot

give its consent to any plea bargaining.
 PLEA BARGAINING

As regards plea bargaining for violation of Section 13

with respect to shabu et. al. (less than 5 grams) and
marijuana (less than 300 grams), the acceptable plea
bargaining for the prosecution will be under Section 11,
par.3.

With respect to shabu, et. al. (5 grams or more) or

marijuana (300 grams or more), the prosecution cannot
give its consent to any plea bargaining.
 PLEA BARGAINING

In cases where minor is charged under

Republic Act 9165 as amended, the minor
shall be proceeded against pursuant to the
provisions of Republic Act No. 9344 as
amended.
 OCA CIRCULAR NO. 80-2019

The courts should not allow plea bargaining if the

objections are valid and supported by evidence to the
effect that the offender is under the following
circumstances:
a. Recidivist,
b. Habitual offender,
c. Known in the community as a drug addict and
troublemaker,
d. One who has undergone rehabilitation but had a
relapse, or has been charged many times, and
e. When the evidence of guilt of charge is strong.