"x x x.
It also bears emphasis that the law provides for safeguards against the conviction of innocent persons. The rule on chain of custody is one of them. In the case at bar, it is evident that the apprehending officers observed the requirement of unbroken chain of custody when it marked the heat-sealed plastic containers of the seized items with their initials in front of the accused, and transmitted the same to the laboratory for examination. These were in accordance with the following pronouncements of this Court:
Early this year, this Court expounded on the requirement of proof of the existence of the prohibited drugs. The prosecution has to establish the integrity of the seized article in that it had been preserved from the time the same was seized from the accused to the time it was presented in evidence at the trial.[25] Here, the prosecution established through PO1 Quimson’s testimony that he got the two sachets of white crystalline substances from Catentay and marked them with his initials on them, that would have been sufficient to ensure the integrity of the substances until they shall have reached the hands of the forensic chemist. (Emphasis supplied.)
The integrity of the seized articles would remain even if PO1 Quimson coursed their transmittal to the crime laboratory through the investigator-on-case since they had been sealed and marked. It does not matter that another person, probably a police courier would eventually deliver the sealed substances by hand to the crime laboratory. But, unfortunately, because the prosecution did not present the forensic chemist who opened the sachets and examined the substances in them, the latter was unable to attest to the fact that the substances presented in court were the same substances he found positive for shabu.[26] (Emphasis supplied.)
Notably, the last requirement, that is, that the forensic chemist should attest to the fact that the substances produced in court are the same specimens she found positive forshabu, had been substantially complied with in the instant case because the prosecution and the defense stipulated that Exhibits “E-1” and “E-2” (the two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets both containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance recovered from the accused), which were presented in court were the same substances subject of both Exhibit “B-1” (the request for laboratory examination dated July 3, 2003) and Exhibit “C-1” (Chemistry Report No. D-1271-03E issued by P/Sr. Insp. Annalee R. Forro), and that the same were regularly examined by the said officer.[27]
x x x."
