Module 5: Investigative Tools and Techniques

I. Learning Objectives

By the end of this session, participants will be able to:

1. Correctly apply the appropriate investigative tools in identifying evidence

given a case scenario;
2. Properly use the appropriate investigative tools in gathering evidence
given a case scenario; and
3. Effectively implement the appropriate investigative tools in preserving
evidence given a case scenario.

II. Time Allocation

This Module consists of six (6) sessions which will require a total _______
minutes, as follows:

Session 1: Searches (140 minutes)

Session 2: Arrests (60 minutes)
Session 3: Rules on Body-worn Cameras (90 minutes)
Session 4: Evidence Gathering and Handling (____minutes)
Session 5: Interviewing the Witnesses (____minutes)
Session 6: Affidavit Drafting (90 minutes)

III. Content and Delivery Mode

Session 1: Searches

1. Search Warrants and Cybercrime Warrants

a. Application
b. Implementation
2. Search without Warrants
3. Possible Offenses in Case of Violation (Article 128, 129 and 130 of
RPC)

Session Objectives: By the end of this module, the participants

should be able to:

1. Prepare a case folder containing the complete requirements to support

an application for a search warrant given a case scenario;
2. Correctly demonstrate the legal requirements in the implementation of
a search warrant;
3. Identify the different cybercrime warrants; and
 4. Apply the different cybercrime warrants in a given situation.

Content Methodology

General Rule A. Tell and Show

1. Search must be with warrant
2. Exception: Warrantless Search This module is delivered through an
interactive lecturette.
What is a Search Warrant?

Search warrant (SW) is an order in Synchronous/in-person session:

writing issued in the name of the PowerPoint slides for interactive
People of the Philippines, signed by a lecturette (50 minutes).
judge and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for
personal property described therein B. Do
and bring it before the court.
1. Group work with a case
Search Warrant Procedure scenario (60 minutes)
1. Application (LEA) 2. “Couple Connect Correct” (30
2. Issuance (Judge) minutes)
3. Implementation (LEA)
4. Delivery and Inventory (LEA)

Application:
General Rule
5. Before any court within whose
territorial jurisdiction a crime
was committed

Exceptions:
1. Before any court within the
judicial region where a crime
was committed
2. Before any court within the
judicial region where warrant
shall be enforced

- Compelling reasons must be

shown in the application

⮚ If a criminal action already

filed, only before the court
where the criminal action
is pending

Issuance:
Requisites:
1. Issued upon probable cause
(PC)*
- The existence of such facts and
circumstances which would lead
a reasonable discreet and
prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed
and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are
in the place to be searched.
2. PC to be determined by the
judge
3. Judge must examine under
oath or affirmation the
complainant & witness(es)
4. Warrant must describe the
place to be searched and
persons/things to be searched

Warrant must describe the place to be

searched and persons/things to be
searched

Place
• No discretion left to the officer
as to the place to be searched
• Sufficient if the officer can with
reasonable effort, ascertain &
identify the place intended &
distinguish it from other places
in the community
Persons
• If known, cite the name
• If unknown, cite best possible
description (e.g. occupation,
appearances, peculiarities,
place of residence & other
circumstances by which he can
be identified)
Things
• Need not be described in
precise and minute details

Implementation:
Validity
• 10 days from date of SW
Time - In the daytime
• SW may insert a direction that
it may be served at any time of
the day or night
Manner
• In the presence of lawful
occupant (LO) or any member
of his/her family; or in the
absence of the latter, two
witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion
• Detailed receipt given to LO, or
in his/her absence, leave
receipt in the place where
seized property is found, in the
presence of two witnesses

Tumabini vs. People [G.R. No.

224495, February 19, 2020]

The following rules and procedures

shall govern the responsibility of anti-
drug units in the application and
implementation of a Search
Warrant (SW).

1. All applications for a Search

Warrant before the Local Courts
shall be approved by the
Regional, Provincial, District,
City Directors, Chief of Police
and NOSU Directors as the case
maybe, or their duly designated
authority. However, if there is
reasonable ground to believe
that the application in the local
Courts shall compromise the
operation, the applications for
SW for violation of RA 9165 may
also be filed before the
Executive Judges of Manila and
Quezon City as the case maybe
with the personal endorsement
of the C, PNP or TDIDM as
provided for under Supreme
Court A.M. No 08-4-4-SC, dated
July 7, 2009.
 2. Upon approval by the Chief of
Office concerned, the
application shall be filed to the
Court of jurisdiction during
office hours. However, the
application may be filed after
office hours, during Saturdays
and Sundays and Holidays
provided, the applicant shall
certify and state the facts under
oath, to the satisfaction of the
Judge, that its issuance is
urgent as provided under
Supreme Court Administrative
Circular No 19 dated August 4,
1987. In view of this, concerned
units are encouraged to
coordinate with and acquire the
addresses and contact numbers
of the Judges in their respective
jurisdictions.

3. Pursuant to DOJ Department

Circular No. 3 para 1
(Compliance with Prescribed
Procedures on the Seizure and
Custody of Dangerous Drugs)
the following shall be observed:

Paragraph 1. Physical inventory

and photography of seized and
confiscated drugs are required in
anti-drug operations. – Section 21
(1), Article II of Republic Act (RA)
9165 entitled "Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002"
and its Implementing Rules and
Regulation (IRR) require that
after seizure and confiscation of
drugs, police officers shall
immediately physically inventory
and photograph the same in the
presence of the following
persons:
a. the accused or the
person/s from whom
 such items were
confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her
representative or
counsel;
b. a representative from
the media;
c. a representative from
the Department of
Justice (must be
Prosecutor); and
d. any elected public
official who shall sign,
and shall be given copies
of the inventory.

Delivery & Inventory:

What?
• Seized property
• Inventory of property seized

To Whom?
• Issuing court

Warrantless Searches
• Search incidental to a lawful
arrest
• Search of moving vehicle
• Plain view
• Stop & frisk or Terry searches
• Consented search

Search incidental to a lawful arrest:

Purposes:
1. to protect arresting officer from
being harmed by the person to
be arrested; and
2. To prevent the latter form
destroying evidence within
his/her reach.

Lawful arrest by virtue of:

1. A warrant lawfully secured;
and
2. A warrantless arrest authorized
under Section 5(a) of Rule 113,
ROC.
Lawful arrest first before search!

Search on the person of the suspect

and the permissible area within the
latter’s reach
e.g., gun on the table or drawer in
front of the suspect

Search of a moving vehicle:

In checkpoints: limited to visual search
Except: There is probable cause to
believe that the
instrumentality/evidence pertaining to
crime can be found in the vehicle to be
searched.

Plain View Doctrine:

Requisites:
1. The LEO in search of the
evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is
in a position from which he can
view a particular area;
2. The discovery of the evidence in
plain view is inadvertent; and
3. It is immediately apparent to
the officer that the item he
observes may be evidence of a
crime, contraband or otherwise
subject to seizure.

Stop & Frisk:

Stop - Requires that the LEO has a
reasonable and articulable belief that
criminal activity has happened or is
about to happen

Frisk - Made after the “stop”; must be

done because of a reasonable belief
that the person stopped is in
possession of a weapon that will pose
a danger to the officer and others;
must be a mere pat down outside the
person’s garment and not
unreasonably intrusive.

Consented Search:
Occurs when a person gives a LEO
permission to search in areas in which
such person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
❖ Must be voluntary

Effect of Illegal Search and

Seizure
• Seized property is inadmissible
for any purpose in any
proceeding
• Results into civil, criminal and
administrative charges against
the officer responsible for the
violation

Criminal
• Violation of domicile (Art.128,
RPC)
• SWs maliciously obtained and
abuse in the service of those
legally obtained (Art. 129, RPC)
• Searching domicile without
witnesses (Art. 130, RPC)

Administrative
• Violation of a person’s right to
be secure in his person, house,
papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and
seizures (Art. 32(9), Civil Code
of the Philippines)

CYBERCRIME WARRANTS

Pursuant to A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC, the

Supreme Court adopted the Rule on
Cybercrime Warrants.

The Rule took effect last August 15,

2018.

The Rule was adopted in consonance

with Republic Act No. 10175
(Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)
defining and penalizing several
cybercrime offenses and providing
procedures on facilitating their
detection, investigation and
prosecution. The Rule lays out the
procedure for the preservation,
disclosure, interception, search,
seizure, and/or examination, custody,
and destruction of computer data as
provided under the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175).

Which courts do we file

applications for cybercrime
warrants?

For violation of Section 4 and/or

Section 5, RA 10175:

General rule:
Application shall be filed before any of
the designated cybercrime courts of
the province or the city where (1) the
offense or any of its elements has been
committed, is being committed, or is
about to be committed; (2) where any
part of the computer system used is
situated; or (3) where any of the
damage caused to a natural or juridical
person took place.

Special Rule:
Cybercrime courts in Quezon City, City
of Manila, Makati City, Pasig City, Cebu
City, Iloilo City, Davao City and
Cagayan de Oro City have special
authority to act on applications and
issue warrants.

For violation of Section 6, RA

10175:

Application shall be filed before regular

or other specialized Regional Trial
Courts within its territorial jurisdiction.

Who may file applications for

cybercrime warrants?
Law enforcement authorities.

What are the contents of the

application?

● Probable offense involved

● Relevance and necessity of the
data being obtained
● Name of individuals or entities
involved
● Particular description of the
data sought to be obtained
● Place where information is to
be enforced
● How disclosure/
interception/seizure/search/
examination of data is to be
carried out
● Other relevant information

What is the duty of the judge

before issuing the cybercrime
warrant?

He must personally examine through

searching questions and answers, in
writing and under oath the applicant
and the witnesses.

Where is the cybercrime warrant

enforceable?

It can be enforced within and outside

the Philippines.

If the warrant is to be enforced outside

the Philippines, service of warrant shall
be coursed through the Department of
Justice—Office of the Cybercrime.

How long is the validity of a

cybercrime warrant?

Ten (10) days from issuance.

Validity may be extended upon motion,

but only for justifiable reasons and for
a period not exceeding ten (10) days
from the expiration of the original
period.

Types of Cybercrime Warrants:

1. Preservation Order of
Computer Data (Sections 3-
3.1)
2. Warrant to Disclose
Computer Data (Section 4-
4.5)
3. Warrant to Intercept
Computer Data Section 5-
5.6)
4. Warrant to Search, Seize
and Examine Computer Data
(Section 6-6.9)
4.1. Warrant to
Examine
Computer Data

1. PRESERVATION ORDER OF
COMPUTER DATA

An order issued by law

enforcement authorities pursuant to
Section 13 of RA 10175 directing the
service provider to keep, retain and
preserve the integrity of traffic data
and subscriber’s information for a
minimum period of six (6) months from
the date of the transaction.

Law enforcers may order service

provider to extend preservation for
another six months. The same may be
availed of only once.

Service provider shall also preserve

computer data until termination of
case and/or as order by the court when
the computer data is used as evidence
in a case and the Office of the
Prosecutor is notified.
 Upon issuance and return, law
enforcers are not allowed to view the
content of the data ordered preserved.

Service provider are also directed

to keep compliance confidential.

2. WARRANT TO DISCLOSE
COMPUTER DATA

Law enforcement authorities, upon

securing a Warrant to Disclose
Computer Data (WDCD) under this
Rule, shall issue an order requiring any
person or service provider to disclose
or submit the data of a subscriber
including network traffic and data
related.

Disclosure should be necessary and

relevant to a complaint officially
docketed and assigned for
investigation.

Compliance must be within 72

hours from receipt of the order.

Return must be made within 48

hours from implementation or after the
expiration of the effectivity of the
warrant, whichever comes first. It
should be coupled with the turnover of
the custody of the disclosed computer
data or subscriber’s information.

Law enforcement authorities may

retain copy of the disclosed computer
data or subscriber’s information
provided it will be kept strictly
confidential and labelled as such. The
retained copy shall be turned over
upon filing of criminal action to the
court where the case is filed. If no
criminal action is filed, turnover of the
retained copy shall be upon order of
the issuing court.
 3. WARRANT TO INTERCEPT
COMPUTER DATA

A warrant issued to law

enforcement authorities, enabling
them to conduct activities such as
listening, recording, monitoring and
surveillance of data either directly or
through the use of electronic tapping
devices at the same time that the
communication is occurring.

Return must be made within 48

hours form implementation or after the
expiration of the effectivity of warrant.
It must also be coupled with the
turnover of the intercepted
communication or computer data.

The person whose communication

or computer data have been
intercepted shall also be notified within
30 days from the filing of return. The
person whose communication or
computer data have been intercepted
may challenge the legality of the
interception.

4. WARRANT TO SEARCH,
SEIZE AND EXAMINE
COMPUTER DATA

A warrant authorizing law

enforcement authorities to search a
particular place for items to be seized
and/or examined.

On-site principle: law enforcement

authorities shall endeavor to conduct
forensic image of the computer data
on-site.

Off-site principle: if on-site forensic

image cannot be conducted, it may be
done off-site provided reasons are
stated in the initial return.
 Return of computer devices or
system searched and seized off-site
may be returned, subject to the
following requirements:

1. Upon motion of the owner;

2. Forensic image has already
been made; and
3. Determination that no lawful
ground exists to withhold
return of such items.

Initial Return must be made within 10

days from issuance of warrant.

Court to issue order fixing the period

to conclude examination.

Final return must be made within 48

hours after the expiration of the period
to examine.

4.2 Warrant to Examine Computer

Data

In cases of lawful warrantless arrest or

by any lawful method.

OTHER MATTERS

Deposit and Custody of Seized

Computer Data

1. Before the issuing court

2. In sealed package
3. Accompanied by complete and
verified inventory and affidavit of
law enforcement officer

Duty of Prosecutor when criminal

action is instituted

File within 10 days, before the issuing

court, a motion for the immediate
transmittal of the records and transfer
of intercepted, disclosed, searched,
seized and/or examined computer data
and items to the court which acquired
jurisdiction of the case.

Destruction and return of computer

data in the custody of the court

Only upon order of the court.

References
1. Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
2. Rules on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
3. Tumabini vs. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020

Session 1: Searches

Learning Activity No. 1

“Group Work”
Target Learning Objectives:
1. Prepare a case folder containing the complete requirements to support an
application for a search warrant given a case scenario; and
2. Correctly demonstrate the legal requirements in the implementation of a
search warrant.

Time Material Instructions to

Mechanics
Allocation Needed Trainers

TOTAL: 60 - PPTs on 1. Participants will be 1. Go around the

minutes instructions grouped into four groups to:
-Case (4). a. check whether
(3 mins for scenario 2. Each group will they are doing
giving of -Bond prepare a case the activity
instructions papers folder containing correctly;
-Pens complete b. clarify
50 mins for
activity proper -Envelopes requirements to instructions if
support an needed;
application for c. observe how
7 mins for
search warrant. they are doing
processing)
3. Each group will the activity.
report to the
 plenary in 3 2. Gather
minutes. observations and
4. After that, the provide feedback in
facilitator will the plenary.
process the
activity. 3. Processing
Questions:
a. How did you feel
Case Scenario: when you were
participating in
CI reports that A is selling the activity?
shabu at his house in b. What will you
Purok 1, Barangay 2, STOP, START or
Municipality 3, Batangas. CONTINUE doing
According to the CI, A as a result of the
discussion?
also allows his clients to
use a room in his house
where they can use
shabu for a fee. Act on
the information.

Session 1: Searches

Learning Activity No. 2

“COUPLE CONNECT CORRECT”
Target Learning Objectives:
1. Prepare a case folder containing the complete requirements to support an
application for a search warrant given a case scenario; and
2. Correctly demonstrate the legal requirements in the implementation of a
search warrant.

Time Material Instructions to

Mechanics
Allocation Needed Trainers

TOTAL: 30 ● 10 Couple Connect Correct

minutes Questions Processing
for Instructions: Questions:
5 mins for Learning
giving of Activity: 1. Participants will be a. How did you feel
instructions grouped into pairs; when you were
2. Pairs will stand participating in the
15 mins for
back-to-back with activity simulating
activity proper
● Metacards a case conference?
(case ● Markers a metacard and b. How did you find
conference marker the activity? Do you
simulation) 3. A question will be think that such kind
asked and the of activity is
10 mins for pairs will write important or
feedback and their answers on useful?
processing their metacards c. Will you do that to
4. If the pair gets the your cases?
the same correct
answer, they will
have 1 point
5. If one member of
the pair has a
wrong answer, no
point will be given
6. The pair with the
highest points at
the end of 10
questions wins the
learning activity

Questions:

[Link] will apply for a

cybercrime warrant?
Answer: Law
Enforcement Officer

[Link] violations of the

Revised Penal or other
Special Penal Laws, this is
the Section under RA
10175 that can be related
to for applicability of the
Rules on Cybercrime
Warrants.
Answer: Section 6

3. This is issued by the

court so that electronic
gadgets seized during a
valid warrantless arrests
may be examined.
Answer: Warrant to
Examine Computer
Data (WECD)
[Link] issues a
preservation order?
Answer: Law
Enforcement Officer

[Link] a warrant issued

for revealing the data of
a subscriber, including
all network traffic and
data related.
Answer: Warrant to
Disclose Computer
Data (WDCD)

[Link] from the

Cybercrime Court in
Cebu, the cybercrime
warrant issued by this
Cybercrime Court in the
Visayas is enforceable
nationwide.
Answer: Iloilo

[Link], this is the

number of days that a
cybercrime warrant is
valid.
Answer: 10 Days

[Link] Cybercrime
Warrant is issued to
service providers to
keep or retain computer
data in their servers
Answer:
Preservation Order

[Link] data
subject of the
Preservation Order shall
be kept, retained or
preserved for this
minimum period.
Answer: 6 Months

[Link] kind of search

refers to the process
 whereby law
enforcement
authorities, by virtue of
a warrant to search,
seize, and examine,
obtains the computer
data subject thereof for
forensic examination,
without the need of
bringing the related
computer device/s
and/or parts of the
computer system
outside the place to be
searched.
Answer: On-site
Search

Session 2: Arrests

1. Arrest with Warrant

2. Arrest without Warrant
3. Possible Offenses in Case of Violation (Article 124 and 125 of the RPC

Session Objectives: By the end of this module, the participants should

be able to explain the validity of a warrantless arrest in a given case
scenario.
Content Methodology

What is Arrest? A. Tell and Show

The taking of person into custody in This module is delivered through an

order that he may be bound to answer interactive lecturette.
for the commission of the offense.

● Actual restraint
Synchronous/in-person session:
● Submission to the custody of
PowerPoint slides for interactive lecturette
the person making the arrest
(30 minutes).
Rule 113, Rules of Court

“Section 1. Definition of C. Do
arrest. — Arrest is the
taking of a person into 1. Huli ka! (30 minutes)
custody in order that he
may be bound to answer
 for the commission of an
offense.”

“Application of actual force, manual

touching of the body, physical restraint
or a formal declaration of arrest is not
required. It is enough that there be an
intent on the part of one of the parties
to arrest the other and an intent on the
part of the other to submit, under the
belief and impression that submission
is necessary.” Colomo v. People, G.R.
No. 230825, June 10, 2020 citing 298
Phil. 421 (1993) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc.

Arrest With Warrant

Article III, Section 2 of the 1987

Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines provides:

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be

secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects against
unreasonable searchers and seizures
of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the
Judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to
be seized. (Emphasis supplied)
Rule 113, Rules of Court

Section 4. Execution of warrant. — The

head of the office to whom the warrant
of arrest was delivered for execution
shall cause the warrant to be executed
within ten (10) days from its receipt.
Within ten (10) days after the
expiration of the period, the officer to
whom it was assigned for execution
shall make a report to the judge who
issued the warrant. In case of his
failure to execute the warrant, he shall
state the reasons therefor. (4a)

Section 7. Method of arrest by officer

by virtue of warrant. — When making
an arrest by virtue of a warrant, the
officer shall inform the person to be
arrested of the cause of the arrest and
of the fact that a warrant has been
issued for his arrest, except when he
flees or forcibly resists before the
officer has opportunity to so inform
him, or when the giving of such
information will imperil the arrest. The
officer need not have the warrant in
his possession at the time of the arrest
but after the arrest, if the person
arrested so requires, the warrant shall
be shown to him as soon as
practicable. (7a)

PNP E-WARRANT SYSTEM

A.M. No. 20-07-11-SC, July 28, 2020

Memorandum of Agreement on the

Enhanced e-Warrant System
OCA Circular No. 150-2023

Reiteration on the Implementation of

the Enhanced E-Warrant System

OTHER RESOURCES

Supreme Court Circular No. 12, June

30, 1987

GUIDELINES ON ISSUANCE OF
WARRANTS OF ARRESTS UNDER
SECTION 2, ARTICLE III, 1987
CONSTITUTION

Warrantless Arrest

A. All cases falling under

Section 5, Rule 113

Section 5. Arrest without warrant;

when lawful. — A peace officer or a
private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person

to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been

committed, and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is

a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he
is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to
another.

In cases falling under paragraph (a)

and (b) above, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station
or jail and shall be proceeded against
in accordance with section 7 of Rule
112. (5a)

Section 5(a) –IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO

ARREST

Requisites:

1. The person to be arrested

executes an overt act indicating
that he has just committed, is
actually committing or is
attempting to commit a crime;
and

2. Said overt act is done in the

presence or within the view of
the arresting officer.

People v. Tudtud, 458 Phil. 752, 775

(2003), citing People v. Chua, G.R.
NOS. 136066-67, 4 February 2003,
396 SCRA 657.

“For the exception in Section 5(a),

Rule 113 to operate, this Court has
ruled that two (2) elements must be
present: (1) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating
that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and (2) such overt
act is done in the presence or within
the view of the arresting officer.”

"[t]he phrase 'in his presence' therein,

connot[es] penal knowledge on the
part of the arresting officer. The right
of the accused to be secure against
any unreasonable searches on and
seizure of his own body and any
deprivation of his liberty being a most
basic and fundamental one, the
statute or rule that allows exception
to the requirement of a warrant of
arrest is strictly construed. Its
application cannot be extended
beyond the cases specifically provided
by law.”

Section 5(b) – HOT PURSUIT ARREST

Requisites:

1. The offense has just been

committed; and

2. The person making the arrest

has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it.

“Personal Knowledge”

It must be shown that the police

officers “have personal knowledge of
facts, based on their observation, that
the person sought to be arrested has
just committed a crime.” Equally
important is the element of immediacy
from when the crime is committed up
to the point of arrest. These will
produce the required probable cause
to justify the hot pursuit arrest.
Personal knowledge based solely on a
tip, is not sufficient probable cause for
a warrantless arrest. (Adoma v.
People, April 12, 2023)

Elements of Section 5(b), Rule 113

 “Hence, as presently worded, Section
5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides that:

When an offense has just

been committed, and he
has probable cause to
believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the
person to be arrested has
committed it.

From the current

phraseology of the rules on
warrantless arrest, it
appears that for purposes
of Section 5(b), the
following are the notable
changes: first, the
contemplated offense was
qualified by the word
"just," connoting
immediacy; and second,
the warrantless arrest of a
person sought to be
arrested should be based
on probable cause to be
determined by the
arresting officer based on
his personal knowledge of
facts and circumstances
that the person to be
arrested has committed it.

It is clear that the present

rules have objectified" the
previously subjective
determination of the
arresting officer as to the
(1) commission of the
crime; and (2) whether the
person sought to be
arrested committed the
crime. According to Feria,
these changes were
adopted to minimize
 arrests based on mere
suspicion or hearsay.[51]

As presently worded, the

elements under Section
5(b), Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure are: first, an
offense has just been
committed; and second,
the arresting officer has
probable cause to believe
based on personal
knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the
person to be arrested has
committed it.” Pestilos,
Macapanas, [Link]. v.
People, G.R. No. 182601,
November 10, 2014 (746
Phil. 301)

Section 5(c) – FUGITIVES/ESCAPEES

When the person to be arrested is a

prisoner who escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to
another.

· If a person lawfully arrested

escapes or is rescued, any
person may immediately pursue
or retake him without a warrant
at any time and in any place
within the Philippines. (Section
13, Rule 113)

· An accused released on bail

may be re-arrested without the
necessity of a warrant if he
attempts to depart from the
Philippines without the
permission of the court where
 the case is pending. (Section
23, Rule 114)

EFFECTS OF AN INVALID
WARRANTLESS ARREST

“The invalidity of an arrest leads to

several consequences among
which are: (a) the failure to
acquire jurisdiction over the
person of an accused; (b)
criminal liability of law enforcers
for illegal arrest; and (c) any
search incident to the arrest
becomes invalid thus rendering
the evidence acquired as
constitutionally inadmissible.”
Veridiano v. People, G.R. No.
200370, June 7, 2017 (810 Phil
642)

METHODS OF ARREST

With Warrant

1. Inform him/her the cause of

arrest
2. Inform him/her the fact that a
warrant has been issued for his
arrest

Without Warrant

1. Inform of peace officer’s

authority
2. Inform him/her the cause of
arrest

By a Peace Officer

1. Inform of peace officer’s

authority
 2. Inform him/her the cause of
arrest

By a Private Person

1. Inform of private person’s

intention to arrest
2. Inform him/her the cause of
arrest

References
1. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
2. Jamel Adoma vs. People, G.R. No. 240126. April 12, 2023
3. Domingo Macad vs. People, G.R. No. 227366, August 1, 2018
4. People vs. Renante Fbronola, G.R. No. 213225, April 04, 2018
5. People vs. Ronilo Jumarang, G.R. No. 250306, August 10, 2022
6. Pestilos, et. al. vs. Generoso and People, G.R. No. 182601, November
10, 2014
7. Angelito Ridon vs. People, G.R. No. 252396, December 06, 2023
8. Franklin Vaporoso, et. al., vs. People, G.R. No. 238659, June 03, 2019
9. Umil v. Ramos, G.R. No. 81567, October 3, 1991
10. People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999
11. People v. Gerrjan Manago, G.R. No. 212340, August 17, 2016
12. People v. Alvario, G.R. No. 120437, July 16, 1997
13. People v. Jerry Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020

Session 2: Arrests

Learning Activity No. 1

“HULI KA!”
Target Learning Objectives:
1. Correctly identify if the scenario presented is a valid warrantless arrest.
Time Material Instructions to
Mechanics
Allocation Needed Trainers

TOTAL Laptop
30 MIN Projector Mechanics:
PPT 1. Participants will be
(3 mins for grouped, with 4-5
instructions; members per
group.
20 mins for 2. Each group will
activity; assign a reporter
for their group.
7 mins for
3. They will be given
Processing)
case scenarios
which they will read
and discuss as a
group.
4. They will then
discuss each
scenario and
determine whether
the scenario
presented is a case
of a valid
warrantless arrest
or not.
5. The groups will be
provided a Manila
Paper to write
down their answers
(with bullet points
for their
justification).
6. After the designated
time, the reporters
will be asked to
report on their
conclusion.
7. Note that each
group will only be
asked to report and
discuss one
scenario, with the
other groups being
asked whether they
agree or not on the
conclusion
8. Processing will
happen after every
 question/scenario
and answer.

ANSWER KEY
CASE SCENARIO 1 CASE SCENARIO 1
HOT PURSUIT In this case, a
The prosecution alleged judicious review of the
that at around 7:00 in the records show that
evening of August 25, while PO2 Torculas
2013, while Police Officer was cruising on his
2 Alexander D. Torculas motorcycle, he
(PO2 Torculas) was personally saw
patrolling along National petitioners holding a
Highway, Barangay lady bag which
Salvacion, Panabo City, he appeared to have been
noticed two (2) men - taken from a parked
later on identified as vehicle. Suspicious of
petitioners - aboard a the incident, PO2
motorcycle with the back Torculas told
rider holding a lady bag petitioners to halt,
which appeared to have prompting the latter to
been taken from a vehicle speed away aboard
parked on the side of the their motorcycle.
road. When PO2 Torculas Immediately
shouted at petitioners to thereafter, the owner
halt, the latter sped away. of the vehicle,
At this point, the owner of Dombase, approached
the vehicle, Narcisa PO2 Torculas and
Dombase (Dombase), sought for his
approached PO2 Torculas assistance, narrating
and told him that that petitioners broke
petitioners broke the the window of her
window of her vehicle and vehicle and took her
took her belongings. This belongings. To the
prompted PO2 Torculas to Court, petitioners'
chase petitioners until the sudden flight[37] upon
latter entered a dark, being flagged by a
secluded area in Bangoy police officer, coupled
Street, prompting him to with Dombase's
call for back-up.[7] narration of what had
Shortly after, Police just transpired is
Officer 1 Ryan B. Malibago enough to provide PO2
(PO1 Malibago), together Torculas with personal
with some Intel knowledge of facts
Operatives, arrived and indicating that a crime
joined PO2 Torculas in had just been
waiting for petitioners to committed and that
petitioners are the
come out of the aforesaid perpetrators thereof.
area.[8] Moreover, upon
gaining such personal
About six (6) hours later, knowledge, not only
or at around 1:00 in the did PO2 Torculas
morning of the following chase petitioners until
day, PO2 Torculas and they entered a dark,
PO1 Malibago saw secluded area, he also
petitioners come out and called for back-up and
decided to approach conducted a "stake-
them. Petitioners, out" right then and
however, attempted to there until they were
flee, but PO2 Torculas and able to arrest
PO1 Malibago were able petitioners about six
to apprehend them.[9] (6) hours later. These
After successfully circumstances
recovering Dombase's indubitably show that
bags and belongings from the twin requisites of
petitioners,[10] the police personal knowledge
officers conducted an and immediacy in
initial cursory body search order to effectuate a
on the latter, and valid "hot pursuit"
thereafter, brought them warrantless arrest are
to the Panabo Police present, considering
Station. Thereat, the that PO2 Torculas
police officers conducted obtained personal
another "more thorough" knowledge that a
search on petitioners, crime had just been
which yielded (5) plastic committed and that
sachets containing white he. did not waver in his
crystalline substance from continuous and
Vaporoso and four (4) unbroken pursuit of
plastic sachets with petitioners until they
similar white crystalline were arrested.[38]
substance from Tulilik. From the foregoing,
PO1 Malibago then the Court concludes
marked the said items in "that the police officers
the presence of validly conducted a
petitioners and conducted "hot pursuit"
the requisite photo-taking warrantless arrest on
and inventory in the petitioners.
presence of Department
of Justice (DOJ) Tulilik v. People
representative Ian G.R. No. 238659, June
Dionalo, Kagawad Elpidio 03, 2019
Pugata, and media
representative Jun
Gumban. At around 10:15
in the morning of August
26, 2013, the seized items
were turned over to the
Provincial Crime
Laboratory of Tagum City,
where, upon examination,
tested positive for the
presence of
methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a
dangerous drug.[11] On
December 18, 2013, the
subject sachets were
delivered to the court.[12]

CASE SCENARIO 2 ANSWER 2

While PO3 Limbauan, PO3 As an adjunct to the
Mike Lester Pacis (PO3 above discussion, the
Pacis), and Bantay Bayan Court decrees that the
Buesa were patrolling on warrantless search on
board a police mobile car Angelito cannot be
at Macopa Street, justified by his alleged
Barangay Comembo, traffic violation. A
Makati City, around 3:30 survey of
a.m. on August 2, 2023, jurisprudence will
they chanced upon show that violating
Angelito, who was driving ordinances and
a motorcycle. PO3 Pacis regulations alone is
ordered Angelito to stop insufficient to trigger a
because Macopa Street valid warrantless
was a one-way street, but search and seizure,
instead of stopping, especially when the
Angelito took a u-turn and penalty does not
drove towards Lanzones involve imprisonment.
Street.7 In Luz v. People,45 the
Court ruled that a
The police officers and warrantless search
Bantay Bayan Buesa incidental to a lawful
chased Angelito and arrest is inapplicable
cornered him at Lanzones because there was no
Street. Angelito then fell valid arrest preceding
along with his motorcycle. the search. While
As he stood up, Angelito there can be an arrest
acted as if he would pull for a traffic violation,
something from his side, the Court noted that
an act that prompted the arresting officer
Bantay Bayan Buesa to did not intend to
grab Angelito. Meanwhile, deprive the accused
PO3 Limbauan and PO3 Luz of his liberty when
Pacis pulled their guns he was flagged down
and pointed at Angelito. for driving a
PO3 Limbauan ordered motorcycle without a
Angelito not to move helmet.46 Hence, the
while PO3 Pacis frisked Court held that the
Angelito and recovered a items seized during the
.38 caliber revolver search were
without a serial number, inadmissible.
loaded with six
ammunition. Ridon v. People
Consequently, the police G.R. No. 252396,
officers arrested Angelito. December 06, 2023
They informed him of his
constitutional rights and
brought him to Police
Community Precinct 9 for
processing. PO3 Pacis
marked the firearm and
the ammunition in the
presence of PO3
Limbauan and Angelito.
After that, they went to
the Makati City Criminal
Investigation Section
where they turned over
the case and the firearm
to the Investigator,
Special Police Officer II
Rodrigo Igno (SPO2
Igno). PO3 Abuan, the
evidence custodian,
confirmed that he
received the gun and
ammunition presented
during trial from SPO2
Igno.
CASE SCENARIO 3 ANSWER 3
The prosecution In an arrest made in
witnesses testified[5] that flagrante delicto, it is
on April 11, 2010, around required that the
10:30 in the morning, apprehending officer
Police Officer (PO) 2 must have been
Manuel Tanay[6] (PO2 spurred by probable
Tanay) received a tip that cause to arrest a
someone "in the De Lima person caught.
residence" located in Probable cause refers
Santiago, Bato, to "such facts and
Camarines Sur was circumstances which
keeping marijuana plants. would lead a
The information was reasonably discreet
relayed to the then Chief and prudent [person]
of Police of Bato, to believe that an
Camarines Sur Police offense has been
Inspector Salvador committed by the
Banaria (P/Insp. Banaria), person sought to be
who, in turn, directed PO2 arrested."[24]
Tanay and PO2 Jeric
Buena[7] (PO2 Buena) to As explained in People
conduct surveillance.[8] v. Racho,[25] a lawful
arrest must precede or
PO2 Tanay and PO2 at least must be
Buena immediately went substantially
to the area and positioned contemporaneous to
themselves around 10 the search made by a
meters outside a house, police officer provided
which was located inside a there is probable
compound. From where cause to arrest the
they were standing, they offender, thus:
could see a man, later on
identified as Jumarang,[9] Recent jurisprudence
tending to some plants at holds that in searches
the roof of the house. Not incident to a lawful
long after, the man, arrest, the arrest must
holding a three-foot tall precede the search;
potted plant with "five generally, the process
finger leaves," started cannot be reversed.
descending the roof. Nevertheless, a search
substantially
Suspecting that Jumarang contemporaneous with
was bringing the plant an arrest can precede
inside his house, the two the arrest if the police
police officers called out have probable cause
to him and rushed inside to make the arrest at
the compound. They the outset of the
instructed Jumarang to search. Thus, given
put the plant down so the factual milieu of
they could closely the case, we have to
examine it. Jumarang determine whether the
complied while asserting police officers had
that it was a medicinal probable cause to
plant. They also asked arrest appellant.
Jumarang if they could go Although probable
inside the house. cause eludes exact
Jumarang relented and and concrete
allowed PO2 Tanay and definition, it ordinarily
PO2 Buena inside the signifies a reasonable
house.[10] ground of suspicion
supported by
When PO2 Tanay and PO2 circumstances
Buena went up the roof, sufficiently strong in
they found two other pots themselves to warrant
of what they identified as a cautious man to
marijuana plants. They believe that the person
also brought these down. accused is guilty of the
At this point, onlookers offense with which he
were already starting to is charged.[26]
gather, including the
owner of the compound, The Court finds that
so PO2 Tanay and PO2 accused-appellant's
Buena decided to bring arrest could not be
Jumarang and the plants justified as an in
to the police station.[11] flagrante delicto arrest
under Rule 113,
Once there, PO2 Tanay Section 5(a) of the
looked for a barangay Rules of Court.
official, a member of the
media, and a prosecutor. People v. Jumarang
He was able to secure the G.R. No. 250306,
attendance of Acting August 10, 2022
Punong Barangay Adam
Billiones, media
practitioner Glenda
Bearis, and Prosecutor
Antonio Ramos, Jr. as
witnesses.[12] PO2 Buena
also prepared the
inventory receipts, and
photographs were taken
of the plants which were
turned over to PO2 Rico
Dancalan. The next day,
the plants were brought
to Camp Simeon Ola for
scientific examination.
The tests conducted by
Police Senior Inspector
Wilfredo I. Pabustan, Jr.,
a forensic chemist,
confirmed that these were
marijuana plants.[13]
CASE SCENARIO 4 ANSWER 4
On 15 July 2011, at 6:30 Here, without the tip
in the evening, a provided by the
confidential informant confidential informant,
(CI) sent a text message accused-appellant
to Police Inspector could not be said to
Dominador Orate, Jr. have executed any
(P/Insp. Orate), then overt act in the
Deputy Station presence or within the
Commander of Police view of the arresting
Station 6, Puerto, officers which would
Cagayan de Oro City, that indicate that he was
an alleged courier of committing the crime
marijuana together with a of illegal possession of
female companion, was marijuana. Neither did
sighted at Cabanglasan, the arresting officers
Bukidnon. The alleged have personal
courier had in his knowledge of facts
possession a backpack indicating that
containing marijuana and accused-appellant had
would be traveling from just committed an
Bukidnon to Cagayan de offense. Again,
Oro City. At 9:30 in the without the tipped
evening, the CI called information, accused-
P/Insp. Orate to inform appellant would just
him that the alleged drug have been any other
courier had boarded a bus bus passenger who
with body number .2646 was minding his own
and plate number KVP business and eager to
988 bound for Cagayan de reach his destination.
Oro City. The CI added It must be
that the man would be remembered that
carrying a backpack in warrantless arrests are
black and violet colors mere exceptions to the
with the marking "Lowe constitutional right of a
Alpine." Thus, at about person against
9:45 in the evening, the unreasonable searches
police officers stationed at and seizures, thus,
Police Station 6 put up a they must be strictly
checkpoint in front of the construed against the
station.[4] government and its
agents. While the
At 11:00 o'clock in the campaign against
evening, the policemen proliferation of illegal
stopped the bus bearing drugs is indeed a noble
the said body and plate objective, the same
numbers. P/Insp. Orate, must be conducted in
Police Officer 3 Teodoro a manner which does
de Oro (PO3 De Oro), not trample upon well-
Senior Police Officer 1 established
Benjamin Jay Reycitez constitutional rights.
(SPO1 Reycitez), and PO1 Truly, the end does not
Rexie Tenio (PO1 Tenio) justify the means.
boarded the bus and saw
a man matching the People v. Fbranola
description given to them G.R. No. 213225, April
by the CI. The man was 04, 2018
seated at the back of the
bus with a backpack
placed on his lap. After
P/Insp. Orate asked the
man to open the bag, the
police officers saw a
transparent cellophane
containing dried
marijuana leaves.[5]

SPO1 Reycitez took

photos of accused-
appellant and the
cellophane bag containing
the dried marijuana
leaves.[6] PO3 De Oro, in
the presence of accused-
appellant, marked the bag
"RCB-2" and the contents
of the bag "RCB-1."[7]
Thereafter, PO1 Tenio
and PO3 De Oro brought
accused-appellant and the
seized bag to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for
examination.[8] On 16
July 2011, at around 1:40
in the morning, Police
Senior Inspector Charity
Caceres (PSI Caceres) of
the PNP Crime Laboratory
Office 10, Cagayan de Oro
City, received the
requests for examination
and the specimen. PSI
Caceres, after conducting
qualitative examination of
the specimen, issued
Chemistry Report No. D-
253-2011[9] stating that
the dried leaves seized
from accused-appellant
were marijuana and which
weighed 3,200 grams.
CASE SCENARIO 5 ANSWER 5
In the afternoon of Evidently, petitioner
November 27, 2011, POI hailed the same bus
Davies Falolo (PO1 that PO1 Falolo was
Falolo), who was not on riding on the way to
duty, boarded a Bing Bush Bontoc, Mountain
bus bound for Bontoc, Province. He then
Mountain Province. He sat threw his carton
on the top of the bus as it baggage to PO1 Falolo
was full. At Botbot, who was then seated
petitioner boarded the on the roof and was
bus. He threw his carton toting a Sagada woven
baggage over to PO I bag as well.
Falolo. Petitioner, also Immediately, PO1
carrying a Sagada woven Falolo smelled the
bag, then sat on top of the distinct scent of
bus, two (2) meters away marijuana emanating
from POl Falolo.5 from the carton
baggage and noticed
When petitioner threw his its irregular shape. He
carton box, PO1 Falolo also noticed that the
already suspected that it Sagada woven bag of
contained marijuana petitioner was
because of its distinct rectangular instead of
smell and irregular shape. an oval and, upon
He was also dubious of touching it, he noticed
the Sagada woven bag that it was hard.
that petitioner had
because it was supposed Accordingly, PO1
to be oval but it was Falolo had probable
rectangular in shape. POI cause that petitioner
Falolo planned to inform was committing the
other police officers at the crime of transporting
barracks but he was dangerous drugs,
unable to do so because specifically marijuana
he ran out of load to send bricks, due to the
a text message.6 unique scent of
marijuana emanating
Upon reaching Bontoc, from the bag and the
petitioner alighted at unusual shapes and
Caluttit, while PO 1 F alolo hardness of the
went down at the baggage. As PO1
Department of Public Falolo was not in
Works and Highways uniform at that time,
(DPWH) Compound to he intended to inform
buy load for his cellular his colleagues at the
phone. Unable to find any PHQ Barracks to
store selling load, POI conduct a check point
Falolo hailed a tricycle and so that they could
asked to be brought to verify his suspicion
Caluttit. PO1 Falolo about the transport of
seated at the back of the illegal drugs.30 As
driver. When the tricycle seen in his testimony,
arrived at Caluttit, PO1 Falolo already had
petitioner was still there probable cause to
and hailed and rode inside conduct an extensive
the same tricycle, with search of a moving
POI Falolo still seated vehicle because he
behind the driver.7 believed before the
search that he and his
When the tricycle reached colleagues would find
the Community Police instrumentality or
Assistance Center evidence pertaining to
(COMPAC) circle, PO1 a crime, particularly
Falolo stopped the tricycle transportation of
and called SPO2 Gaspar marijuana, in the
Suagen (SPO2 Suagen), vehicle to be searched.
who was then on duty.
While SPO2 Suagen However, PO1 Falolo
approached them, PO1 discovered that his
Falolo asked petitioner if load was insufficient to
he could open his make a phone call.
baggage, to which the Thus, without the
latter replied in the back-up of his
affirmative. However, colleagues, he chose
petitioner suddenly ran to remain vigilant of
away from the tricycle petitioner until he
towards the Pines could contact them.
Kitchenette. Both police When the bus reached
officers ran after him and Bontoc, petitioner
apprehended him in front alighted in lower
of Sta. Rita Parish Church. Caluttit. On the other
Petitioner was then hand, PO1 Falolo
handcuffed and he, alighted in front of the
together with his DPWH Compound,
baggage, were brought to which was not more
the Municipal Police than a kilometer away
Station.8 from lower Caluttit, to
look for cellphone load
to contact his
colleagues. When he
failed to find load for
his phone, PO1 Falolo
immediately boarded a
tricycle back to lower
Caluttit and sat at the
back of the driver.

There, PO1 Falolo

chanced upon
petitioner, who
boarded the same
tricycle and sat inside.
When the tricycle
reached the COMP AC,
PO1 Falolo stopped the
tricycle and called
SPO2 Suagen, who
was on duty. He then
asked petitioner if he
could check his
baggage and the latter
answered in the
affirmative.

However, when
petitioner saw SPO2
Suagen approaching
the tricycle, he
suddenly ran away
towards the Pizza
Kitchenette and left his
baggage.

At that moment, PO1

Falolo also acquired
probable cause to
conduct a warrantless
arrest on petitioner.
There were numerous
circumstances and
overt acts which show
that PO1 Falolo had
probable cause to
effect the said
warrantless arrest: (1)
the smell of marijuana
emanating from the
carton baggage; (2)
the irregular shape of
the baggage; (3) the
hardness of the
baggage; (4) the
assent of petitioner in
the inspection of his
baggage but running
away at the sight of
SPO2 Suagen; and (5)
leaving behind his
baggage to avoid the
police officers.

Petitioner's flight at
the sight of the
uniformed police
officer and leaving
behind his baggage
are overt acts, which
reinforce the finding of
probable cause to
conduct a warrantless
arrest against him. The
Court has held that the
flight of an accused is
competent evidence to
indicate his guilt; and
flight, when
unexplained, is a
circumstance from
which an inference of
guilt may be drawn.
Indeed, the wicked
flee when no man
pursueth, but the
innocent are as bold as
lion.31

Based on these facts,

PO1 Falolo had
probable cause to
believe that there was
a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by
circumstances
sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant
a cautious man's belief
that petitioner is guilty
 of the offense
charged. Petitioner
was caught in
flagrante delicto of
transporting marijuana
bricks by PO1 Falolo.

Macad v. People
G.R. No. 227366
August 1, 2018

Session 3: Rules on Body-Worn Camera

1. Scope and Applicability

2. Procedure
a. Before Execution
b. During Execution
c. After Execution
3. Consequence of Non-Compliance
a. Non-Admissibility of Evidence
b. Liability of Law Enforcers

By the end of this module, the participants should be able to correctly demonstrate
the step-by-step procedure for using a body-worn camera in a case scenario.

Content Methodology

A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC (Rules on the A. Tell and Show

Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the
Execution of Warrants) This module is delivered through an
interactive lecturette.
Background:
Synchronous/in-person session:
In the light of the increasing reports of
civilian deaths resulting from the PowerPoint slides for interactive
execution of warrants issued by trial lecturette (30 minutes).
courts, the Supreme Court issued last
29 June 2021 and published last 9 July
2021, the Rules on the Use of Body- 2. Do
Worn Cameras in the Execution of
Warrants (A.M. 21-06-08-SC). These 1. Group work with a case scenario
rules govern the use of body- worn (60 minutes)
cameras to aid law enforcers with the
ALTERNATIVE
requirements in the application for
arrest, search, and seizure warrants. 2. MIX AND MATCH (60 minutes)
The rules also provide for conditions
that judges must require whenever
they grant applications for warrants,
and which law enforcers must comply
with.

Body-Worn Camera - An electronic

camera system designated to law
enforcement units for creating,
generating, sending, receiving,
storing, displaying, and processing
audio-visual recordings that may be
worn during law enforcement
activities.

Alternative Recording Device (ARD) is

an electronic camera system that is
NOT a body-worn camera, that is
capable of creating, generating,
sending, receiving, storing, displaying,
and processing audio-visual
recordings, and maybe worn during
law enforcement activities. It may be
used as a substitute for body-worn
cameras in case of unavailability. To
be used as a functional equivalent, it
shall comply with the following
minimum standard requirements:

RULE2

ARREST WARRANTS

SECTION 1. Issuance of Warrant and

Requirement to Use Body-Worn
Cameras. — Upon finding probable
cause, the trial court shall issue an
arrest warrant with an order requiring
the use of at least one body-worn
camera and one alternative recording
device, or a minimum of two devices,
or such number as may be necessary
to capture and record the relevant
incidents during its execution.

In case of unavailability of body worn

cameras, the law enforcement officers
who will implement the warrant shall
file an ex parte motion before the
court, requesting authority to use
alternative recording devices for
justifiable reasons. Should the trial
court find merit in the motion, it shall
issue an order allowing the use of
alternative recording devices, which
order shall be attached to and form
part of the arrest warrant. If a body-
worn camera is not available, the
officers must use at least two
alternative recording devices.
SEARCH WARRANTS

SECTION i. Application for Search

Warrants. - An applicant for a search
warrant shall state in the application
the availability or unavailability of
body-worn cameras to be used in the
execution of the search warrant. In
Resolution 9 A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC
case of their unavailability, the
applicant may request for authority to
use alternative recording devices.

Multiple search warrant applications

based on the same evidence filed in
the same court shall be a ground for
denial. If already issued, this shall be
a ground for the quashal of these
warrants.
Data recorded by BWC and ARD are
not a public record subject to
disclosure unless the recordings
involve:

a) an incident resulting in loss of life

OR

b) an assault made on LEO during the

arrest or search

To be admitted as evidence, any

recording taken under these Rules, as
well as those made by persons
witnessing the arrest or search, must
be presented during the trial and
authenticated by the person who
captured the recording.

Consent of the person arrested or

those affected by searches and
seizures to the use of the recordings
resulting from the use of BWC/ARD in
a court proceeding shall only be asked
in the presence of counsel. But when
the recordings capture incidents
resulting in a loss of life or an assault
made on LEO during the arrest or
search, such may be used in court
even without the consent of the
person arrested/affected by searches
and seizures.

For evidentiary purposes, the

recordings are suppletory to
testimonies of the person subject of
the recording or the LEO, and not be
deemed as substitutes for the
presentation of witnesses.

Session 3: Rules on Body-Worn Camera

Learning Activity No. 1

“Group Work”

By the end of this module, the participants should be able to correctly demonstrate
the step-by-step procedure for using a body-worn camera in a case scenario.

Time Material Instructions to

Mechanics
Allocation Needed Trainers

TOTAL: 60 - PPTs on
minutes instructions 1. Participants will be Processing
-Case divided into four groups Questions:
scenario
-Bond 2. Participants will 1. What do you
papers designate a group find important,
(Mechanics: 5 -Pens if any, in the
min discussion leader, a note-
-Envelopes discussion?
taker and a reporter. 2. Is there
Activity: 30 anything that
minutes 3. They will be given a you discussed
case scenario on the today that is
Reporting: implementation of a particularly
Processing:10 search warrant and they relevant to you
mins) will discuss the answers to and/or your
the questions. They will work?
3. What do you
discuss for 30 minutes
see as benefits
of applying the
4. Group answers will
learnings from
be shared by the reporter this lesson?
during the plenary. Each
group will be given 5
minutes to report answer key:
SEARCH WARRANT
CASE SCENARIO PRIOR:

Facts: Search Warrant

 At least 1 BWC & 1
ARD
Pursuant to a prior
surveillance and test buy, 1. applicant for SW
a Search Warrant dated shall state in the
application the
June 18, 2023, was issued
availability or
by Judge Manghuhusga A.
unavailability
Matinud-anon of the of body-worn cameras
Regional Trial Court of to be used in the
Pagadian City, Branch 02 execution of the
against Rocky Rambo and search warrant
his wife, Rowena Rambo. 2. If no BWC available,
applicant of SW to
The Search commanded
request for authority
the law enforcement to use ARD
agents to search and seize •applications to be
methamphetamine personally endorsed
hydrochloride (shabu). by heads of PNP, Anti-
Crime Task Force,
PDEA and the BOC for
SW involving heinous
On June 19, 2023, the crimes, illegal
team led by PSSG Roseller gambling, illegal
Garces, PSSG Sobra A. possession of firearms
& ammunitions,
Matapat, PCPL Andres
violation of RA 9165,
Matibay, and PCPL Anti-Money
Manulat implemented the Laundering Act,
search warrant. PSSG Customs
Matapat was designated Modernization and
as the searcher; while Tariff Act
PCPL Matibay was the
Procedure during
recorder. According to
Execution of SW
PSSG Matapat, they were 1. activate BWC upon
accompanied by Barangay arrival at the place of
Councilor Roldan Tormis search
and Media 2. notify the lawful
Representative, occupants of the
premises to be
Tigpamaba A. Alayon.
searched, as early as
Upon arriving at Rocky practicable that the
Rambo’s residence, the execution of the
team called out Rambo search warrant is
but nobody answered. being recorded
PSSG Matapat forced 3. do not deactivate
until search has been
open the door of the concluded & the
house but found another officers conducting the
locked door leading to the search have left the
premises & returned to
second level where Rocky
the police station
Rambo and his children
were staying. Rocky AFTER
Rambo eventually opened Procedure Post-
the door and was given a Execution of SW:
copy of the search 1. store recordings in
warrant. The team an external media
storage device
informed Rocky Rambo
2. deposit in a sealed
that they would search package with the
the house in the presence issuing court
of the barangay councilor 3. execute affidavits
and the media (of BWC or ARD users)
representative. PCPL detailing manner of
Matibay recorded the recording
4. file return of SW
implementation using a
with the above items
body-worn camera. when death results in
the execution of SW,
also submit an incident
report detailing the SW
After searching the house, implementation
PSSG Matapat found three
(3) heat-sealed packs and
one (1) heat-sealed
plastic sachet containing
white crystalline
substance. The team
further found one (1) tin
foil, two (2) lighters, a
camera, seven (7)
watches, a cellphone, five
(5) P100.00 bills, two (2)
handguns, and three (3)
live ammunitions. The
three (3) packs weighing
0.07 gram were marked
with "SAM," the initials of
PSSG Matapat for the
sachets seized from Rocky
Rambo; while the one (1)
sachet weighing 0.01
gram was marked with
"SAM-1 the initials PSSG
Sobra A. Matapat for the
sachets seized from
Rowena I. Rambo. PSSG
Matapat prepared an
inventory of the items
seized in the presence of
the barangay councilor
Roldan Tormis and media
representative Tigpamaba
A. Alayon. The seized
items were subsequently
brought to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for
examination. Chemistry
Report No. D-1010-
2003,10 dated June 19,
2023, indicated that the
specimens yielded a
positive result for
Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu.

QUESTIONS:

1. Prior to the
implementation of
the search
warrant, what
preparations
should the search
team do to comply
with the rules on
body worn
camera?
 2. During to the
implementation of
the search
warrant, what
procedures should
the search team do
to comply with the
rules on body worn
camera?
3. After the
implementation of
the search
warrant, what
procedures should
the search team do
to comply with the
rules on body worn
camera?

Session 3: Rules on Body-Worn Camera

Alternative Learning Activity

“Mix and Match”

By the end of this module, the participants should be able to correctly demonstrate
the step-by-step procedure for using a body-worn camera in a case scenario.

Time Material Instructions to

Mechanics
Allocation Needed Trainers

TOTAL: 60 - PPP slides

minutes for 1. Participants will be Processing
Mechanics divided into four groups Questions:

(Mechanics:5 -Meta cards 2. Participants will be 1. What do you

min find important,
given a chart and
if any, in the
discussion?
Activity: 30 metacards containing the 2. Is there
minutes procedures. anything that
you discussed
Processing:10 3. Using the chart, today that is
mins) particularly
participants will place the
relevant to you
appropriate metacards
and/or your
applicable to the use of
work?
BWC in the 3. What do you
implementation of the see as benefits
search warrant and the of applying the
implementation of learnings from
warrant of arrest. this lesson?

The procedure must be

placed in order (before,
during and after the
implementation)

CHART

ARREST SEARCH
WARRANT WARRANT

Session 4: Evidence Gathering and Handling (Forensics)

1. Identification
a. Object
b. Documentary
c. Testimonial
2. Collection
a. Chain of Custody
3. Preservation
4. Presentation

Session Objectives: By the end of this module, the participants should

be able to:
 1. Identify the types of physical evidence found at a crime scene and
differentiate object from documentary evidence
2. Describe how to collect and preserve evidence in a given case scenario.
3. Accurately document the collection and preservation of evidence and
explain the chain of custody.

Content Methodology

What is Evidence?
A. Tell and Show
· Evidence is the means,
sanctioned by these Rules,
This module is delivered through an
of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth interactive lecturette.
respecting a matter of fact.
[Section 1, Rule 128]

Synchronous/in-person session:
What is the purpose of evidence?
PowerPoint slides for interactive
· To ascertain the truth lecturette; 30 minutes.
respecting a matter of fact,
a factual issue, because in a
case, the problem always of
the court is: Who is telling
B. Do
the truth?

· To prove whether an · The participants will identify objects

allegation is true or false and that will be shown to them and
to determine the truth based determine the kind of evidence as well
on disputed facts. as how it will be gathered and collected.

When is evidence admissible?

· Evidence is admissible when it There will be a group work where the

is relevant to the issue and not participants will do a case study analysis.
excluded by the Constitution, the law
or these Rules. (3a)

RELEVANT + COMPETENT =
ADMISSIBLE

When is evidence relevant?

· Evidence must have such a
relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence.
Evidence on collateral matters shall
not be allowed, except when it tends
in any reasonable degree to establish
the probability or improbability of the
fact in issue.

· Evidence which has a tendency

in reason to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.

· Sometimes relevant and

material evidence are interchanged
but there is a difference between the
two.

What are collateral matters?

· Collateral matters or
circumstantial evidence are proof of
facts from which, taken singly or
collectively, the existence of the
particular fact in dispute may be heard
as a necessary or probable
consequence.

Identification of Evidence

I. Object Evidence

Those addressed to the senses of

the court [Sec. 1, Rule 130].

Categories of Object
Evidence

1. Unique objects - Objects that

have readily identifiable marks; or

exhibit identifiable visual or physical
peculiarities.
2. Objects made unique – Objects with
no unique characteristic but are made
readily identifiable by law enforcers
upon retrieval or confiscation

3. Non-unique objects - Objects with

no identifying marks and cannot be
marked

II. Documentary

Consist of writings, recordings,

photographs, or any material
containing letters, words, sounds,
numbers, figures, symbols, or their
equivalent,

or other modes of written expressions

offered as proof of their contents.
[Sec. 2, Rule 130]

Photographs include still pictures,

drawings, stored images, x-ray films,
motion pictures or videos. [Sec. 2,
Rule 130]

If offered for some other purpose, they

constitute object evidence.

III. Testimonial

All persons who can perceive, and

perceiving, can make known their
perception to others, may be
witnesses (Sec.21, Rule 130).

COLLECTION AND
PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE

After a crime scene has been

properly secured and protected
from unauthorized persons from
contaminating the evidence, the
collection and preservation of
 evidence should be done by the
investigators or specialists.

Crime Scene is the place where the

crime was committed or the place
where the body of the crime was
found.

Purposes of a Crime Scene

Search:

1. To reconstruct what really

happened;

2. To identify the perpetrators;

3. To gather additional evidence;

operandi of the perpetrators;

4. To destroy the alibis of the suspect;

and

5. To determine the corpus delicti of

the fact that the crime has been
committed.

DUTY OF THE FIRST RESPONDER:

1. Note the time of arrival and the

weather condition.

2. Prevent onlookers from crowding

the crime scene.

3. Make a preliminary approximation

of the extent of the crime scene.

4. Request the help of responsible

persons in the area to help protect the
crime scene.

5. Make a general appraisal of the

technical needs at the crime scene.

6. Ensure that aid is extended to

injured victims, but if the victim is
ascertained to be dead, the golden
rule on homicide cases must be
observed.

TYPES OF CRIME SCENE SEARCH

USED IN LOCATING AND
COLLECTING EVIDENCE:

1. Strip/Double Strip method

2. Zone Method

3. Spiral (clockwise or
counterclockwise)

4. Wheel

5. Point-to-point (applicable to large

areas)

There is no hard and fast rule that can

be laid down as to the specific method
of search to be employed in any given
case. The situation will dictate what
method is to be employed. Each case
will usually demand a procedure
calling for some variations from the
standard methods. It may require a
wholly different type of approach. Any
method is correct but the search must
be orderly, optimistic and thorough.

THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

The methods and techniques to

employ in the collection, handling
and preservation of physical
evidence at the crime scene of any
major crime depend upon the
nature of the object to be collected.

There are several factors to

consider, like:

-kind of specimen
-technique for handling
-method of marking
 -quantity of specimen and standard
needed
-preservation and packing
- investigative value

In every criminal investigation

there is always some type of physical
evidence involved. The basic problem
to the investigating officer is how to
identify evidence, collect it, preserve it
for safekeeping, analyze it, compare it,
and eventually present that same
evidence in court.

Basic Types of Physical Evidence

Some commonly basic types of

physical evidence that may be
encountered in any particular crime
scene will include the following:

-Blood

- Incendiary material

-Bullet

- Paint

-Cartridge cases

- Powder residues

-Clothing

- Serial number restoration

-Explosive residues

- Shot and powder patterns

-Fibers

-Shotgun pellets and wads

-Fingernail scrapings
- Shotgun shells

-Firearms

-Soil

-Glass

-Tool Marks

-Hair

-Wood

Characteristics and methods of

collection of the most common
types of criminal evidence:

Blood

When collecting a liquid sample of

blood, observe the following
procedures:

-Use a clean, disposable pipette or

eyedropper for each sample collected.

-Place the sample in a small container,

avoiding excess air space, because air
will cause the same to dry.

-If the amount of blood is minimal,

collection may best be made by
placing the sample in: normal saline
solution (1 teaspoon salt in 1 quart of
distilled water).

-Refrigerate samples in saline solution

as soon as possible.

-Do not mix areas where samples are

collected.
-Use a clean container and collection
tools for each area of the scene where
blood samples as found

-Above all, avoid contaminating the

samples by re-using collection tools.

When blood evidence is involved in the

investigation, be sure to obtain:

-Statements relative to the origin of

the blood stains.

-Blood samples from all parties

concerned.

-Saliva if typing is to be done from

other than blood stains.

Hair

Hair may be found almost any place at

a crime scene. It can be determined if
the hair is animal or human, whether
the hair is dyed or bleached, if hair is
from the head or body, and the racial
origin can be determined.

Even though positive identification is

not possible, it can be said that the
hair "matches in all respects" that of
the suspect or "it is not from the
suspect." Samples must be taken from
all parties concerned:

-Take samples of head hair from

the top, the back, and each side of the
head.

-Take by combing, pulling or

cutting close to root.
 -Take at least a dozen hears from
each location.

-In rape cases, take two samples from

both the victim and the suspect. The
first is taken by combing, the second
by cutting or pulling.

-Each of these samples should be

collected in separate containers and
properly labeled.

-Identify hairs carefully as to exact

location found.

-Do not mix hairs frond in different

locations.

-Place the hair in folded paper and put

in an envelope or glass vial and seal.

-Do not tape the air to an object as this

alters the hair and destroys any debris
adhering to it.

Fingernail Scrapings

In cases where physical contact has

been made, fingernail scrapings
should be obtained.

To collect samples of fingernail

scrapings, follow these procedures:

-Clean under each fingernail with a

clean fingernail file.

-Place the scrapings from each finger

on already labeled paper with notation
of which finger it came from.

-Place the scrapings from each finger

in a separate envelope or glass vial.

-Fingernail scrapings should be

obtained from both the victim and the
suspect.
Clothing

-Collect all the outer clothing

-Be careful not to shake off trace

evidence when clothing is removed.

-Have subject stand on clean paper

when undressing, then place the
folded paper in the container with the
clothing.

-Dead bodies should be undressed

over a clean sheet to avoid loss of
trace evidence.

-Package each item of clothing

separately.

-Be careful to identify each item and

properly label.

-Establish if this is the clothing worn at

the time of the crime.

-Do not rely on others to collect

clothing at hospitals and mortuaries.
This may complicate identification
later.

-Keep a tight "Chain of Custody" as

clothing is often the most important
single item d evidence and ownership
may be disputed.

Fibers

-Treat and package fibers in the same

manner as hair.

-Be extremely careful not to cross

contaminate during the collection
process.
-Collect the clothing which is
considered to be the source of the
fibers.

-Do not shake items as this may

dislodge the fibers.

Glass

-Samples should be collected from

each broken piece of glass at crime
scene.

-These should be packaged

individually in glass vials or envelopes.

-In hit-and-run cases, collect all

broken glass to insure the possibility of
a Physical match, should fragments be
found on suspect's vehicle.

Paint

-When collecting paint fragments,

avoid crumbling the fragment.

-The shape of the fragment may be

able to be marched to a missing paint
area on an item involved in the case

-In cases where paint has been

transferred from one item to another,
collect a sample of the foreign paint
and a sample of the uncontaminated
paint which belongs on the particular
surface.

-Package these in separate containers.

-When collecting the uncontaminated

paint, collect close to the damaged
area.

-Collect samples by cutting or chipping

and place them in clean vials.
-Label each sample as to the exact
location in which it was found.

-Do not mix samples from various

locations.

-Take two samples for every distinctly

different surface area.

Wood

-Get fairly large samples from a spot

near the area destroyed.

-Include all coatings of paint, tar,

roofing, etc.

-Place samples in clear paper bags,

identify and label them.

Soil

-If an impression is dug, such as a

grave, collect samples at various
depths.

-If a large hole, collect samples at

different locations at various depths.

-When collecting, do not mix samples

from different areas.

-Package and seal in tight containers

such as glass vials.

-When collecting samples from

vehicles, collect blobs which may have
come from the same location and
place in separate containers.

-Do not scrape all the dirt together into

one container.

Firearms
 - Firearms must be handled
very carefully, not only as a safety
factor, but to avoid disturbing any
evidence they may provide.

-They must be properly marked

for later identification.

-Never insert anything in the

barrel as this may damage the
identifying characteristics and dislodge
material which may be inside the
barrel

-Pick up the weapon by the

trigger guard or checkered grip so as
not to disturb any fingerprints

DNA Fingerprinting

This method enables investigators to

analyze the DNA (deoxyribonucleic
acid) - the molecule genes are made
of - in biological evidence such as
blood, hair, or semen recovered from
a crime scene.

Like one's genetic makeup, a person's

fingerprints are unique. Most
fingerprints left at a scene are latent
(invisible). They are made visible by
being brushed with a special powder of
chemicals or being exposed to light
from a laser or an ultraviolet lamp.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Meaning of 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 both civil and
criminal cases.

In a criminal case, there is no room for

doubt, and it must be established with
certainty that the object presented in
court is the same object confiscated
from the accused. But while the chain
of custody of the evidence must not be
broken so as not to leave any doubt
that the item being presented in court
is the same item confiscated from the
accused, the Supreme Court has held
that minor lapses do not mean that the
State had failed to show an unbroken
chain of custody of the evidence, or
that the said evidence has tampered.
This is the ruling of the Supreme Court
in the case of People vs. Abriol, et al.,
G.R. No. 123137, October 17, 2001. It
has to be emphasized, however, that
the pieces of evidence involved in this
case are not dangerous drugs but the
slugs and spent shells recovered from
the scene of the crime, and the
Supreme Court gave more premium on
the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties by the police
officers owing to the following: 1) the
slugs, spent shells, and the victim's
corpse was identified in open court by
the police investigators, and 2) the
ballistician testified that the bullets and
cartridges recovered from the crime
scene had been fired from the subject
handguns.

Chain of Custody in relation to

Drug Cases
In drug cases, the Supreme Court has
adopted a stricter implementation of
the chain of custody rule owing to the
relative ease in tampering with the
evidence itself. In People vs. Angeles,
G.R. No. 218947, June 20, 2018, the
Supreme Court declared that “strict
compliance with the procedure is
required because of the illegal drug's
unique characteristic rendering it
indistinct, not readily identifiable, and
easily open to tampering, alteration or
substitution either by accident or
otherwise.”Thus, the term “chain of
custody” in violations of R.A. No. 9165,
has been given a specific definition by
the Dangerous Drugs Board under
Section 1 (b) of its Regulation No. 1,
Series of 2002, which states: “Chain of
Custody” means the duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or
plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage,
from the time of seizure/confiscation
to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court
for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item
shall include the identity and signature
of the person who held temporary date
and time when such transfer of
custody was made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.”

Purpose of the Chain of Custody

Rule in Drug Cases

The dangerous drug itself constitutes

the very corpus delicti of the offense in
drug cases, and to sustain a
conviction, its identity and integrity
must be shown to have been
preserved. This requirement
necessarily arises from the illegal
drug's unique characteristic that
renders it indistinct, not readily
identifiable, and easily open to
tampering, alteration, or substitution
either by accident or otherwise. The
mere fact of unauthorized possession
or sale of the dangerous drug is not
sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt.
It is essential that its identity be
established beyond a reasonable
doubt. (see People vs. Merando, G.R.
No. 232620, August 05, 2019).

Since prosecutions under the

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
primarily revolve around the identity
and integrity of the corpus delicti,
compliance with its guidelines on the
custody and disposition of the
dangerous drugs seized is vital. Hence,
it cannot be overemphasized that the
purpose of the chain of custody rule in
the prosecution of drug cases is “to
establish the identity of the dangerous
drugs with moral certainty” (People vs.
De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, January 22,
2020) and “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).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. Compliance
with the chain of custody requirement
provided by Section 21, therefore,
ensures the integrity of confiscated,
seized, and/or surrendered drugs
and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4)
respects: first, the nature of the
substances or items seized; second,
the quantity (e.g., weight) of the
substances or items seized; third, the
relation of the substances or items
seized to the incident allegedly causing
their seizure; and fourth, the relation
of the substances or items seized to
the person/s alleged to have been in
possession of or peddling them.
Compliance with this requirement
forecloses opportunities for planting,
contaminating, or tampering with
evidence in any manner. (Lescano vs.
People, G.R. No. 214490, January 13,
2016).

Requirements and Procedures to

be Observed under the Chain of
Custody Rule in Drug Cases (Sec.
21 of R.A. No. 9165; Guidelines on the
Implementing Rules and Regulations
of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as
Amended by R.A. No. 10640)

ADDITIONAL NOTES CHAIN OF CUSTODY

[1]
LINKS IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY

1. Meaning of 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 that
handled the evidence. Establishing the chain of custody of evidence is required
in both civil and criminal cases.
In a criminal case, there is no room for doubt, and it must be established with
certainty that the object presented in court is the same object confiscated from
the accused. But while the chain of custody of the evidence must not be broken
so as not to leave any doubt that the item being presented in court is the same
item confiscated from the accused, the Supreme Court has held that minor
lapses do not mean that the State had failed to show an unbroken chain of
custody of the evidence, or that the said evidence has tampered. This is the
ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Abriol, et al., G.R. No.
123137, October 17, 2001. It has to be emphasized, however, that the
pieces of evidence involved in this case are not dangerous drugs but the slugs
and spent shells recovered from the scene of the crime, and the Supreme Court
gave more premium on the presumption of regularity in the performance of
duties by the police officers owing to the following: 1) the slugs, spent shells,
and the victim's corpse was identified in open court by the police investigators,
and 2) the ballistician testified that the bullets and cartridges recovered from
the crime scene had been fired from the subject handguns.
2. Chain of Custody in relation to Drug Cases

In drug cases, the Supreme Court has adopted a stricter implementation of the
chain of custody rule owing to the relative ease in tampering with the evidence
itself. In People vs. Angeles, G.R. No. 218947, June 20, 2018, the Supreme
Court declared that “strict compliance with the procedure is required because
of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily
identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by
accident or otherwise.”

Thus, the term “chain of custody” in violations of R.A. No. 9165, has been given
a specific definition by the Dangerous Drugs Board under Section 1 (b) of its
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which states:
“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody
of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer
of custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.”
3. Purpose of the Chain of Custody Rule in Drug Cases

The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense
in drug cases, and to sustain a conviction, its identity and integrity must be
shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the
illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily
identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either
by accident or otherwise. The mere fact of unauthorized possession or sale
of the dangerous drug is not sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt. It is
essential that its identity be established beyond a reasonable doubt. (see
People vs. Merando, G.R. No. 232620, August 05, 2019).

Since prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act primarily

revolve around the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, compliance
with its guidelines on the custody and disposition of the dangerous drugs
seized is vital. Hence, it cannot be overemphasized that the purpose of the
chain of custody rule in the prosecution of drug cases is “to establish the
identity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty” (People vs.
De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, January 22, 2020) and “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).

4. Requirements and Procedures to be Observed under the

Chain of Custody Rule in Drug Cases (Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165;
Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165, as Amended by R.A. No. 10640)

A. CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN WARRANTLESS SEIZURES

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-

[2]
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.

In People vs. Villar, G.R. No. 215937, November 9, 2016, where the drug
evidence was marked merely with the letter “J” which was the first letter of
the first name of the arresting officer, it was held that “there is nothing in the
Rules which require the police officer who marked the seized items to indicate
the date, time and signature on the specimen to be submitted for
examination.”

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 the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable;

4) The physical inventory and photographing shall be conducted in the same

nearest police station or the 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);

NOTE: A representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) is anyone

from its employees, while the media representative is any media practitioner.
The elected public official is any incumbent public official regardless of the
[3]
place where he/she is elected.

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 they refuse 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.

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 was made in the course
of safekeeping until submitted to laboratory personnel for forensic laboratory
[4]
examination.

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
[5]
laboratory control and chain of custody form.

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 are taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for
operating units other than the PDEA according to Section 86 (a) and (b),
[6]
Article IX of the IRR of RA No. 9165 shall be presented.

A. CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN SEIZURES THROUGH SEARCH

WARRANTS

- Same requirements and procedures as those for warrantless seizures, from 1

to 10. However, the marking, physical inventory, and photographing shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served.
NOTE 1: Before the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10640, three (3)
persons were required to witness the physical inventory and taking of
photographs other than the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel. These
persons were: 1) an elected public official; 2) a media representative; and, 3)
a DOJ representative. Now, given the said amendment, only two (2) are
required – an elected public official, and a media or an NPS representative.
Likewise, the representative from the DOJ was replaced by a representative
from the NPS.

NOTE 2: In cases when the execution of a search warrant is preceded by

warrantless seizures, the marking, inventory, and photographs of the items
recovered from the search warrant shall be performed separately from the
marking, inventory, and photographs of the items seized from warrantless
[7]
seizures.

LINKS IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY

[8]
Based on the pronouncements made by the Supreme Court, there are four
(4) typical links in the chain of custody of evidence in drug cases. The
following flowchart shows these four (4) links.
 FORENSIC CHEMIST

The investigating officer shall be the one to turn over the drug
evidence to the forensic chemist. Only the
Forensic chemist, to the exclusion of the other personnel of the crime
laboratory, must receive
the drug evidence in order not to break the chain. The same forensic
chemist shall also be the one who
will accordingly conduct the requested examination of the drug
evidence. The transfer of the evidence
from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist shall be properly
recorded on the Chain of Custody Form.

COURT

The same forensic chemist who examined the drug evidence shall be the one
to turn it over to the court, together with the Physical Science
Report/Chemistry Report, which contains the result of his/her examination.
Unless his/her testimony is stipulated, the forensic chemist shall testify in court
on the result of his/her examination, and on matters pertaining to the
preservation of the integrity of the drug evidence while in his/her custody, from
his/her receipt thereof to its turn over
to the court.

It must be stressed, however, that the circumstances leading to the

confiscation of drug evidence differ so that there may be variations in the chain.
For example, there are instances when an investigating officer is not involved
in the chain. There are also instances when the arresting officer is different
from the seizing officer. In some cases, the arresting officer is the same as the
seizing officer. And in other cases, several barangay tanod and civilians may
also be involved. In all of these different circumstances, the point of the chain
of custody rule is to show that from the time the drug evidence is seized to the
time it is presented in court, the transfers were properly made and recorded in
such a way that the chain remained unbroken. It is best practice to establish
the links in chronological order for a better appreciation of the chain.

Relatively, worthy of note is the case of People vs. de Balmes, G.R. No.
250136, March 17, 2021, where one of the issues raised was the absence
of an investigator assigned to the case which was allegedly in violation of the
2014 Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation.
On the said issue, the Supreme Court held that the absence of an investigator
did not affect the chain of custody since the only ones who had custody of the
seized items were the arresting officer and the forensic chemist.

When deviations from the requirements of the Chain of Custody

Rule are excused

[9]
In the strict implementation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, particularly
paragraph one (1) thereof, the Supreme Court enunciated a mandatory policy
in People vs. Romy Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, quoted
hereunder, to wit:

“XXXX in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket
any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases, the following should
henceforth be enforced as a mandatory policy:
“1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must
state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165,
as amended, and its IRR.
“2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing
officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps
they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized/confiscated items.
“3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn
statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the
case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further
preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable
cause.
“4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may
exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant
of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance
with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.”
But while the Supreme Court has made it mandatory that “the
apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR,” it
still recognized the fact that the law itself has provided for exceptions. Thus, in
case of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No.
9165, as amended, and its IRR, the Supreme Court requires that the
apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation
therefor as well as the steps they have taken to preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.

In People vs. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019, the
Supreme Court declared that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance
with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. As such, the
failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not
ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid,
provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable
ground for noncompliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved.

In the case of Lindongan vs. People, UDK-16615, February 15, 2021,

the Supreme Court held that insofar as the witness requirement is concerned,
non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the
apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the
presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. Thus, mere
statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the
required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.

And in People vs. Baluyot, 243390, October 5, 2020, the Supreme Court,
citing the afore-mentioned case of People vs. Romy Lim, stated that in the
event of the absence of one or more of the witnesses, the prosecution must
allege and prove that their presence during the inventory of the seized items
was not obtained due to reasons such as:

(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote
area;

(2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was
threatened by immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s
acting for and on his/her behalf;

(3) the elected official was involved in the punishable acts sought to be
apprehended;

(4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative

and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code proved futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who
face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or

(5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely
on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the
presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.

Handling, Custody and Disposition of Drug and Non-Drug Evidence –

[10]

During the handling, custody and disposition of evidence, the provisions of

Section 21, RA 9165 and its IRR as amended by RA 10640 shall be strictly
observed. Noncompliance, under justifiable grounds, with the requirements of
Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures and custody over the items provided the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team. Any justification or explanation in cases of
noncompliance with the said requirements, shall be clearly stated in the sworn
statements/affidavits of the apprehending arresting/seizing officers, as well as
the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized/confiscated items.

Photographs of pieces of evidence must be taken immediately

upon discovery of such, including the process of recording the inventory in the
presence of required witnesses.

The Seizing Officer must mark all the evidence seized with his/her
initials and signature as well as the date when the evidence was
found/recovered or seized, numbered consecutively.

A. Drug Evidence
 (1) Upon seizure or confiscation of dangerous drugs or CPECs, laboratory
equipment, apparatus and paraphernalia, the operating unit’s Seizing
Officer/Inventory Officer must conduct the photographing, marking and
physical inventory in the place of operation in the presence of: (a) the
suspect/s 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) representative from the National Prosecution Service or Media,
who shall affix their signatures and who shall be given copies of the
inventory. The Chain of Custody Form shall also be accomplished together
with the Inventory Sheet.

(2) For seized or recovered drugs covered by search warrants, the

photographing, marking and inventory must be done in the place where the
Search Warrant was served.

(3) For warrantless seizures like buy-bust operations, the photographing,

markings, and physical inventory must be done at the place of apprehension,
unless for justifiable reasons, the photographing, markings, and physical
inventory may be made at the nearest Police Station or Office of the
apprehending Officer or Team, ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items remain intact and preserved. Such justification or
explanation as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized/confiscated items shall be clearly stated in a Sworn Affidavit
of Justification/Explanation of the apprehending/seizing officers.

(4) In cases when the execution of search warrant is preceded by warrantless

seizures, the photographing, marking, and inventory of the items recovered
from the search warrant shall be performed distinctly and separately from the
photographing, marking, and inventory of the items seized from warrantless
seizures.

(5) In case of seizure of plant sources at the plantation site, where it is not
physically possible to count or weigh as a complete entity, the seizing officer
shall estimate its count or gross weight, as the case may be. If it is safe and
practicable, the photographing, marking and inventory of the seized plant
sources may be performed at the plantation site. Representative samples of
prescribed quantity pursuant to DDB Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,
as amended, and/or DDB Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2007, as amended,
shall be taken from the site after the seizure for laboratory examination, and
retained for presentation as the corpus delicti of the seized/confiscated plant
sources following the chain of custody of evidence.

(6) Whenever necessary, the dangerous drugs and/or CPECs seized shall be
properly packed, sealed and marked with the initials and signature of the
seizing officer as well as the date when the evidence was found/recovered or
seized, numbered consecutively.

(7) Within the same period, the Seizing or Inventory Officer shall prepare an
Inventory Sheet which shall include but not limited to the following:

(a) Time, date and place of occurrence/seizure.

(b) Identity of person/s arrested.
(c) Identity of the Seizing Officer and all persons who witnessed the
marking and inventory;
(d) Type of Operation (e.g. warrantless seizure, buy-bust, etc.)
(e) Description of the vehicle, vessel, place or person searched from
where/whom the substance was found.
(f) Description of packaging, seals and other identifying marks.
(g) Quantity of the seized items.
(h) Description of the substance found
(8) As far as practicable, all seized dangerous drugs and/or CPECs shall be
immediately submitted to the crime laboratory for examination and proper
disposition.
(9) Upon submission of the drug evidence to the crime laboratory for
examination, all the phases of turn-over of evidence must have corresponding
receipts to show continuance of chain of custody.

Non-Drug Evidence (To Be Covered in A Separate Inventory Sheet and

Chain of Custody Form)

(1) The following pieces of non-drug evidence shall be photographed,

marked and inventoried:
(a) Buy-bust/marked money, if applicable.

(b) For motor vehicles and other forms of transportation (e.g. banca, bicycle,
airplane): plate number/conduction sticker number, color, model, make and
type and description.

(c) For firearms: serial number, model, make and caliber, kind and type.

(d) For explosives (after observing safety protocol from EOD Unit):
description and type.

(e) For other deadly weapons (e.g. knives): description, measurement,

quantity.

(f) For smaller pieces of evidence (e.g. ammunition): pertinent information

such as quality, quantity and place where it was seized/recovered.

(2) For digital evidence such as computers, cell phones, laptops, other similar
gadgets, and storage peripherals (e.g. flash drives, CD) the same shall likewise
be photographed, marked and inventoried.

(3) For documentary evidence, same procedure regarding photographs,

marking, and inventory shall be followed.

(4) For motor vehicles and firearms and digital evidence, the same are subject
to verification and processing by the LTO, FED and Cybercrime Division of the
concerned law enforcement agency

Chain of Custody Form

To ensure the preservation of the integrity and identity of the drug evidence,
the Chain of Custody form shall indicate:
(a) the time and place of the search;

(b) the names of the officers who marked, inventoried and sealed the seized
items;

(c ) location of the evidence at the time it was found. If the same was seized
from an individual, it should note exactly where on the person the evidence
was found, e.g. right front pocket;

(d) type of operation for which the evidence was obtained, e.g. evidence of a
sale, implementation of search warrant;

(e) item numbers of the seized items in numerical sequence consistent with
the Inventory Sheet;

(f) detailed description of the article at the time it was seized.

(g) names of officers who took custody and in what capacity they received
the evidence from one officer to another within the chain, including those who
have handled the evidence during media presentation; and

(h) 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 and presentation in court.

(2) The receipt of evidence must be acknowledged by all officers receiving the
evidence, whether in the same or a separate document. Such receipt shall form
part of the case folder of the transmitting unit.

(3) The evidence custodian, when applicable, must maintain a logbook that
contains information on:
(a) the person who turned in the evidence for safekeeping;
(b) the date and time thereof;
(c) the person who received it;
(d) the person who requested the same for whatever purpose, who shall affix
his name, signature, date and time in the logbook.

(4) When a piece of evidence is turned in, the custodian should check the
identification mark on the piece of evidence to ensure that it is the same item
and determine that the item is in the same condition as when it was discovered.
Any change in the physical appearance of the evidence should be noted and
recorded.

[1] Handbook on the Investigation and Prosecution of Dangerous Drugs – DOJ Technical Working
Group.
[2]
See A.1.2 of the Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as
Amended by R.A. No. 10640.

[3]
See A.1.6 of the Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as
Amended by R.A. No. 10640.

[4]
See A.1.11 of the Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as
Amended by R.A. No. 10640.

[5]
See B.5 of the Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as Amended
by R.A. No. 10640.

[6]
See A.1.10 of the Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as
Amended by R.A. No. 10640.

[7]
See A.1.4 of the Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165, as Amended by R.A. No. 10640.

[8]
See People vs. Arposeple, et al., G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017; People vs. Guanzon, G.R. No.
233653, September 05, 2018; People vs. Santos, G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018; People vs. Lim, G.R.
No. 231989, September 4, 2018; People vs. Villar, G.R. No. 215937, November 9, 2016 .

[9]
Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
 Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.

[10] Unified Manual on the Investigation and Prosecution of Illegal Drugs.

References:

Evidence Gathering and Collection

1. Rules 128-133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

2. Special Crime Investigation by Felipe G. Montojo

3. Handbook on Crime Scene Protection and Investigation by PSUPT Orlando

Obispo Yebra Jr., B.A., BSPS, M.P.A., [Link], PNPA Class of 1992

Chain of Custody
1. MALILIN VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 172953, APRIL 30, 2008
2. PEOPLE VS. VILLAR, G.R. NO. 215937, NOV. 29, 2016
3. RAMOS VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 227336, FEBRUARY 26, 2018
4. PEOPLE VS. ANGELES, G.R. NO. 218947, JUNE 20, 2018
5. PEOPLE VS. CABRELLOS, G.R. NO. 229826, JULY 30, 2018
6. PEOPLE VS. ROMY LIM, G.R. NO. 231989, SEPT. 4, 2018
7. PEOPLE VS. GUANZON, G.R. NO. 233653, SEPT. 5, 2018
8. PEOPLE VS. ORDIZ, G.R. NO. 206767, SEPT. 11, 2019
9. PEOPLE VS. TOMAWIS, G.R. NO. 228890, APRIL 18, 2018
10. PEOPLE VS. OBIAS, G.R. NO. 222187, MARCH 25, 2019 (Search Warrant,
Constructive possession)
11. PEOPLE VS. MERANDO, G.R. NNO. 232620, AUGUST 05, 2019
12. VILLASANA VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 (“Reliable
Information is not sufficient.
13. PEOPLE VS. SANTOS, G.R. NO. 243627, NOVEMBER 27, 2019
14. PEOPLE VS. SALI, G.R. NO. 236596, JAN. 29, 2020
15. TUMABINI VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 224495, FEBRUARY 19, 2020 (Issue
on who are the witnesses when drug evidence was seized by virtue of a Search
Warrant vs. Warrantless Seizure)
16. PEOPLE V. LEAÑO, G.R. NO. 246461, JULY 28, 2020 (Issue on putting
seized evidence inside a pocket)
17. PEOPLE VS. BALUYOT, 243390, OCTOBER 5, 2020
18. PEOPLE VS. DEJOS, G.R. NO. 237423, OCTOBER 12, 2020
19. PEOPLE VS. REAFOR, G.R. NO. 247575, NOVEMBER 16, 2020
17. PEOPLE VS. BALUYOT, 243390, OCTOBER 5, 2020
18. PEOPLE VS. DEJOS, G.R. NO. 237423, OCTOBER 12, 2020
19. PEOPLE VS. REAFOR, G.R. NO. 247575, NOVEMBER 16, 2020
20. PEOPLE V. ABALLARI, G.R. NO. 205880, JANUARY 12, 2021
21. PEOPLE VS. RACO, G.R. NO. 219618. JANUARY 26, 2021
22. PEOPLE VS. ALUNAN, G.R. NO. 244170, JANUARY 25, 2021 -On
instigation, surveillance, and recording of buy-bust money in the police blotter
23. REMOQUILLO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 239508, FEBRUARY 3, 2021
24. PEOPLE VS. GUZMAN, G.R. NO. 253145, FEBRUARY 8, 2021
25. LINDONGAN VS. PEOPLE, UDK-16615, FEBRUARY 15, 2021
26. PEOPLE VS. RIBAY, G.R. NO. 242210. FEBRUARY 17, 2021
27. PEOPLE VS. LABAY, G.R. NO. 251444, MARCH 3, 2021 (Includes
stipulations on the forensic chemist’s testimony)
28. PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA, G.R. NO. 242269, MARCH 3, 2021
29. PEOPLE V. DE CHAVEZ, G.R. NO. 239779, MAY 14, 2021
30. PEOPLE VS. RIVERA, G.R. NO. 252886, MARCH 15, 2021 (Includes
stipulations on the forensic chemist’s testimony)
31. PEOPLE VS. DE BALMES, G.R. NO. 250136, MARCH 17, 2021
-4 links not followed but chain still not breached / no investigator involved
in the chain
32. PEOPLE VS. CONCEPCION, G.R. NO. 204019, MARCH 24, 2021
33. PEOPLE VS. SANGCUPAN, G.R. NO. 220462, MARCH 24, 2021
34. PEOPLE VS. ANCHETA, G.R. NO. 238404, MAY 3, 2021
35. PEOPLE VS. ESTABILLO, G.R. NO. 252902,
35. PEOPLE VS. ESTABILLO, G.R. NO. 252902, JUNE 16, 2021
-Is powder-dusting of buy-bust money required?
36. PEOPLE V. LANGCO, G.R. NO. 249852, JUNE 14, 2021
37. PEOPLE VS. GARAIS, G.R. NO. 246163, JUNE 23, 2021
38. PEOPLE VS. KENDO & KENDO, G.R. NO. 247713, JUNE 23, 2021
(Includes stipulations on forensic chemist’s testimony)
39. PEOPLE VS. LUMA, G.R. NO. 253856, JUNE 28, 2021
40. PEOPLE VS. GONZALES, G.R. NO. 252327, JUNE 28, 2021

LEARNING ACTIVITY

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

DURATION CONTENT ACTIVITY AND EQUIPMENTS TRAINER’S

DELIVERY AND NOTES
MODE MATERIALS
NEEDED
1 Hour Evidence [Link] · Laptop & Learning
Handling in Lecturette projector Activity:
drug cases ·Powerpoint “Pulis, Pulis
[Link]
Chain of Activity slides Handa Ka na
Custody “Pulis, Pulis ·Case Ba?”
Handa ka Scenario
na ba?” (1 ·Easel Board Mechanics:
hour) with Easel
Sheets 1. The
·Markers participants
Answer Sheet will be
divided into
three (3)
groups.
2. A case
scenario will
be provided
to the
groups.
3. They will
answer the
questions by
writing their
answers on
the easel
boards
provided to
them.
4. Each group
will appoint a
discussion
leader, a
secretary, a
reporter and
a timekeeper.
5. The groups
will be given
10 minutes
each to
report on
their answers.
6. Processing
by the trainer
will follow.
CASE SCENARIO FOR GROUP 1
On February 14, 2025, a confidential informant (CI) arrived in the office of
the Philippine National Police - Drug Enforcement Unit (PNP-DEG) at Camp
Crame, Quezon City, relaying that he was able to secure a drug deal with a
certain alias “Papa.” The deal involves four (4) kilos of “shabu” valued at
P5,000,000.00. According to the CI, alias “Papa” guaranteed the quality of
the illegal drug. The CI further disclosed that he was able to gain the trust of
alias “Papa” and he could introduce someone as a buyer of shabu. When the
information given by the CI was evaluated and authenticated, P/Lt. Col. Coco
Dalisay (P/Supt. Dalisay), Chief of the PNP -DEG ordered the members of the
group to set a buy-bust operation against alias “Papa” the following day.
In the morning of October 2, 2023, P/Lt. Col. Dalisay presided over the
briefing for the conduct of the buy-bust operation against alias “Papa,” with
PSMS Addictus Dela Bato (PSMS Dela Bato) designated as poseur-buyer.
Meanwhile, PSMS Piolo Minsan (PSMS Minsan), PSMS Alden Palagi (PSMS
Palagi) and PSMS Drew Olivarez (PSMS Olivarez) were designated as
arresting officers. PSMS Sam Milyon (PSMS Milyon) was assigned as the
seizing officer. PEMS Kerwyn Taves was designated as the investigator. To be
used in the operation are two (2) pieces of ultraviolet fluorescent powdered
Php1,000.00 bills (serial numbers DV600001 and DV600002) and several
bundles of boodle money. A pre-arranged signal was also conceived by
means of PSMS Dela Bato wearing his bull cap signifying the consummation
of the illegal drug transaction. In the afternoon of the same day, the CI was
able to convince alias “Papa” to deliver the “shabu” at around 3:30 p.m. at
the food court of Robinsons Mall, Malate, Manila (Robinsons-Manila).

QUESTION FOR GROUP NO. 1

Before conducting the actual buy-bust operation, what preparations should
the buy-bust team make?

CASE SCENARIO FOR GROUP NO. 2

On February 14, 2025, a confidential informant (CI) arrived in the office of

the Philippine National Police - Drug Enforcement Unit (PNP-DEG) at Camp
Crame, Quezon City, relaying that he was able to secure a drug deal with a
certain alias “Papa.” The deal involves four (4) kilos of “shabu” valued at
P5,000,000.00. According to the CI, alias “Papa” guaranteed the quality of
the illegal drug. The CI further disclosed that he was able to gain the trust of
alias “Papa” and he could introduce someone as a buyer of shabu. When the
information given by the CI was evaluated and authenticated, P/Lt. Col. Coco
Dalisay (P/Supt. Dalisay), Chief of the PNP -DEG ordered the members of the
group to set a buy-bust operation against alias “Papa” the following day.
In the morning of October 2, 2023, P/Lt. Col. Dalisay presided over the
briefing for the conduct of the buy-bust operation against alias “Papa,” with
PSMS Addictus Dela Bato (PSMS Dela Bato) designated as poseur-buyer.
Meanwhile, PSMS Piolo Minsan (PSMS Minsan), PSMS Alden Palagi (PSMS
Palagi) and PSMS Drew Olivarez (PSMS Olivarez) were designated as
arresting officers. PSMS Sam Milyon (PSMS Milyon) was assigned as the
seizing officer. PEMS Kerwyn Taves was designated as the investigator. To be
used in the operation are two (2) pieces of ultraviolet fluorescent powdered
Php1,000.00 bills (serial numbers DV600001 and DV600002) and several
bundles of boodle money. A pre-arranged signal was also conceived by
means of PSMS Dela Bato wearing his bull cap signifying the consummation
of the illegal drug transaction. In the afternoon of the same day, the CI was
able to convince alias “Papa” to deliver the “shabu” at around 3:30 p.m. at
the food court of Robinsons Mall, Malate, Manila (Robinsons-Manila).
After the briefing, the members of the buy-bust operation team then
proceeded to Robinsons-Manila. They arrived at the said place at around 3:00
p.m. PSMS Dela Bato and the CI waited for the call of alias “Papa” while the
rest of the group positioned themselves tactically within the vicinity of the
food court of Robinsons-Manila. When alias “Papa” called the CI at around
3:30 p.m., the latter told him that he and buyer are sitting in front of Lydias
Lechon.
Meanwhile, at around 3:45 p.m., alias “Papa” entered Robinsons-Manila. He
was with three (3) companions, who were later on identified as Pete Limako,
Sandra Dam and Mocha Asan Na. Alias “Papa” and his companions were each
carrying a black backpack.
When the group of alias “Papa” arrived at their agreed meeting place, the CI
introduced his companion (PSMS Dela Bato) as the buyer, alias “Papa” then
inquired if PSMS Dela Bato has with him the P5,000,000.00 cash. After PSMS
Dela Bato gave his affirmative answer, he insisted on seeing the “shabu.”
This prompted alias “Papa” to open his black backpack which revealed a
Ziplock transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance. Pete
Limako, Sandra Dam and Mocha Asan Na also opened their respective
backpacks. Alias “Papa” then handed the four (4) backpacks to PSMS Dela
Bato who then demanded payment. PSMS Dela Bato obliged by handing to
him a brown paper bag containing bundles of P1,000.00 bills with boodle
money. As alias “Papa” was examining the bills, Mocha Asan Na suddenly
stood up and excused herself to go to the comfort room.
PSMS Dela Bato then gave the pre-arranged signal to the arresting officers
by wearing his bull cap. At this instance, PSMS Minsan, PSMS Palagi, PSMS
Olivarez and PSMS Milyon arrived and introduced themselves as police
officers. They arrested alias “Papa,” Sandra Dam and Pete Limako and
informed them of their constitutional rights. Mocha Asan Na was able to
escape. The real name of alias “Papa” was revealed as Antonio Bilyones
(respondent Bilyones).
The buy bust money was seized from respondent Bilyones.
PSMS Milyon was able to seize four (4) Ziploc transparent plastic bags each
containing white crystalline substance

QUESTIONS FOR GROUP NO. 2

1. To properly preserve the integrity of the chain of custody of the dangerous
drugs, what steps and/or procedures should be undertaken by the buy-bust
team right after the arrest of respondents “Papa, ”Sandra Dam and Pete
Limako?
2. What steps should the buy bust team undertake from the time of leaving
the place of arrest to their office/station?

CASE SCENARIO NO. 3

On February 14, 2025, a confidential informant (CI) arrived in the office of

the Philippine National Police - Drug Enforcement Unit (PNP-DEG) at Camp
Crame, Quezon City, relaying that he was able to secure a drug deal with a
certain alias “Papa.”

ANSWER SHEET TO THE LEARNING ACTIVITY

MODULE 4 “Pulis, Pulis handa ka na ba?”

GROUP 1 Suggested Answers

Question No. 1 1. Plan the buy-bust operation by
Before conducting the actual buy- considering all available intelligence
bust operation, what preparations information and report about the
should the buy-bust team make? suspect/target individual that could
aid the operatives in the conduct
of a successful buy-bust operation.

2. Conduct surveillance, validate

information and if necessary and
practicable, a test buy may
first be conducted. The dangerous
drugs purchased shall be
photographed, marked, sealed
and submitted to the PDEA
Laboratory Service, or the PNP Crime
Laboratory or NBI Forensic
Laboratory, as the case may be, for
analysis and custody.

3. Secure Authority to Operate.

4. Coordinate the operation with

PDEA, as far as practicable. The lack
of required coordination with PDEA
under RA 9165, Section 86 however
will not invalidate the buy-bust
operation which is just a form of in
flagrante arrest sanctioned by the
Rules of Court, Rule 113, Section
[1]
5.

5. Conduct a briefing preparatory to

the buy-bust to discuss the
designation of personnel and
their respective duties, safety and
security aspect of the operation and
possible coordination with the
other law enforcement units. The
logistical and documentary
requirements for the operation shall
 [2]
also be discussed and prepared.
6. Secure or record genuine and
earnest efforts to secure the
witnesses from the National
Prosecution Service or media and an
elected public official.

Group 2
Question No. 1 1. During the actual buy-bust, the
1. To properly preserve the integrity poseur-buyer must ensure that the
of the chain of custody of the suspect delivers the illegal drugs
dangerous drugs, what steps and/or and accepts the buy-bust money
procedures should be undertaken by before giving the prearranged signal
the buy-bust team right after the to the other members of the team
arrest of respondents “Papa, ”Sandra for the arrest of the suspect.
Dam and Pete Limako?
2. When the suspect is arrested, the
Arresting Officers shall immediately
introduce themselves, then inform
the suspect/s of the nature of their
arrest and inform the suspect/s of
their constitutional rights unless the
same would endanger the lives of the
arresting team, in which case the
process may be done after the
subject is secured. After the arrest,
the Arresting Officers shall search the
body of the suspect for any deadly
weapon, illegal items and recover the
buy-bust money.

3. The Seizing Officer shall

immediately confiscate and take
custody of the illegal drugs, and buy
bust money, if available. During the
physical inventory, the Seizing Officer
must mark, and photograph the
seized/recovered evidence in
accordance with the provision of
Section 21 of RA 9165 as amended by
RA 10640 in the presence of the
[3]
witnesses required by law by
affixing his initials, the date and his
signature and labeling the same
chronologically in sequence, as the
case may be.

4. The taking of photographs,

marking and inventory shall be made
at the place where the dangerous
drugs and/or illegal items were
seized, but for justifiable reasons, it
can be done at the nearest police
station or office of the Apprehending
Officer or Team,
whichever is practicable. However, in
cases when inventory is not done on
site, the inventory officer must be
able to justify and explain the reason
for his/her failure to do so to ensure
the integrity and evidentiary value of
the evidence are preserved.

5. Thereafter, the Arresting/ Seizing

Officer shall turn-over the arrested
suspects to the custodial
facility for booking and processing;
physical/medical examination and
drug test within twenty-four (24)
hours.

6. The Seizing Officer, shall submit

the seized dangerous drugs to the
investigator who will, in turn, forward
the same to the PDEA Laboratory
Service or PNP Crime
Laboratory, or the NBI Forensic
Laboratory, as the case may be,
for examination and analysis.
Question No. 2 The items seized must always be
What steps should the buy bust within the view of the respondent
team undertake from the time of and/or his/her representative and the
leaving the place of arrest to their insulating witnesses and not kept in
office/station? the pocket of the seizing officer.
GROUP 3 The responsible agent/Investigator-
Question On-Case shall prepare the case folder
Assuming that PSMS Milyon turned to be presented to the Prosecutor’s
over the dangerous drugs to the Office for inquest
investigating officer, what steps proceedings for violation of Section 5,
should be undertaken, and what Art II, RA 9165 and should
documents should be prepared, attach the following:
before and after the said turn-over?
a. Essential Documents:

(i) Case Referral to the Prosecutor’s

Office
(ii) Affidavit of Arrest
(iii) Affidavit of Seizing Officer
(iv) Affidavit of Poseur Buyer
(v) Inventory of Property Seized
(vi) Accomplished Chain of Custody
Form
(vii) Request for and Result of
Laboratory Examination/ Chemical
Analysis of
Seized Items
(viii) Photographs of evidence

b. Supporting Documents, if
applicable:
(i) Affidavit of the Investigator on
Case
(ii) Affidavits of witnesses under
Section 21 or Letters of Invitations to
the witnesses. (In
the absence of one of the witnesses,
a statement under oath
setting forth the justification
for the absence of one of the
witnesses.)
(iii) Affidavits of other witnesses
(iv) Spot Report
(v) Request for and Result of
Physical/Medical Examination and
Laboratory
Screening Test of the suspects
(vi) Receipt of Inventory of
Property Seized
(vii) Receipt of Turn-Over of
Evidence
(viii) Receipt of Turn-Over of
Arrested Suspects
(ix) Acknowledgment Receipt
of Drug Evidence from the Chemist
(x) Photographs of the
Suspects
(xi) Booking Sheet and Arrest
Report
[1] see People vs Balaquit, G.R. No. 206366, August 13, 2014

[2] Unified Manual on the Investigation and Prosecution of Illegal Drugs.

[3] (a) The suspect or person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized or his/ her
representative or counsel; (b) an elected Public Official; and (c) Any representatives from the
Department of Justice or Media who shall affix their signatures and who shall be given copies of the
inventory. (Note: The presence of the above-mentioned witnesses shall only be required during the
physical inventory of the confiscated items. If in case said witnesses are absent, their absence should
be recorded in the report, explaining the reason why they are absent. It must be shown that earnest
efforts were exerted to contact and sure the presence of these witnesses.

SESSION 5 – Interviewing Witnesses

Lesson 5.1 – Types of Witnesses

Lesson 5.2 – Interviewing Witnesses

LESSON OBJECTIVE:
APPLY the PEACE model in investigative interviewing in a simulated
interview

CONTENT METHODOLOGY
Excerpts from
P.E.A.C.E. A. Tell and Show
A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWING This module is delivered through an
interactive lecturette.
[Link]
Synchronous/in-person session:
‘Investigative interviewing is the
questioning of victims, witnesses, PowerPoint slides for interactive
and suspects (interviewee) to lecturette (30 minutes).
obtain complete, accurate and
reliable information to discover the
truth about the matter under 2. Do
investigation’
Principles of Investigative 2. ROLE PLAYING with a case
Interviewing scenario (60 minutes)
1. The aim of investigative
interviewing is to obtain accurate
and reliable information from a
victim, witness of an investigation
in order to discover the truth about
matters under investigation.
2. Investigative interviewing should
be approached with an
investigative mindset.
Accounts obtained from the person
who is being interviewed should
always be tested against what the
interviewer already knows or what
can be reasonably
established.
The main purpose of obtaining
information in an interview is to
further the enquiry by establishing
facts.
This point highlights the
importance of effective planning in
line with the whole investigation.
3. Investigators are free to ask a
wide range of questions
in an interview in order to obtain
material, which may assist an
investigation and provide sufficient
evidence or information.
Although the interviewer may ask a
wide range of questions, the
interviewing style must not be
unfair or oppressive. The
interviewer should act in
accordance with relevant laws
or codes of practice.

The acronym - P.E.A.C.E -

summarizes and assists
remembrance of the five stages of
managing the interview
process:
•Preparation and Planning
•Engage and Explain
•Account, Clarification, Challenge
•Closure
•Evaluation.

Planning;
“the mental process of getting
ready to interview…”
Preparation;
“considering what needs to be
made ready..”
Planning Phase Considerations
•Information about the witness;
•Information about the alleged
offence(s); and
•Information important to the
investigation

Building Rapport and Engaging

the Witness
Rapport is essential and good
rapport between interviewer
and witness can improve both the
quantity and quality of information
gained in the interview. Rapport
therefore has a direct impact on
the interview process itself.
Rapport is
especially important where the
type of information required is
highly personal. Rapport should
not be regarded as something that
is confined to the first phase of an
interview;
it begins when the interviewer first
meets the witness and
continues throughout the
interview.

Opening the Interview:

Explaining the Ground Rules
It is important to explain to the
witness what is to be
expected from them, as for most
witnesses an investigative
interview is an alien situation.
People typically fear the
unexpected, and by describing the
interview process this fear can be
reduced.

ACCOUNT/CLARIFICATION
Report Everything
Witnesses are unlikely to volunteer
a great amount of detailed
information unless told to do so.
Interviewers
therefore should explicitly state
their need for detail.
Thus, as with the transfer of
control instruction, the ‘report
everything’ instruction encourages
witnesses to report everything they
remember without any editing,
even if the
witnesses think the details are not
important or trivial, or
cannot remember completely a
particular aspect of the event.

Questioning
During the free narrative phase of
an interview most witnesses will
not be able to recall everything
relevant that
is in their memory. Therefore, their
accounts could greatly benefit from
the interviewer asking appropriate
questions that assist further recall.

Closing the Interview

Interviewers should in this final
main phase consider briefly
summarizing what the witness has
said, using the words and phrases
used by the witness as far as
possible. This
allows the witness to check the
interviewer’s recall for accuracy.
The interviewer must explicitly tell
the witness to correct them if they
have missed anything out or have
got
something wrong.

Questioning Skills
Questions should be:
-simple words used should be
easily understood
-short long-winded questions may
be misinterpreted.

Questions should be put:

-logically - they are less confusing
in a logical sequence
-singularly - put one question or
make one point at a time
-politely - being polite, quiet and
calm will lessen the likelihood of
unnecessary confrontation
-set calmly the tone of the
interview and heighten your status
with the other person.

IMPORTANCE OF NOTE
TAKING
Notetaker system has been
developed, after extensive and
on-going research to improve the
quality of the gathering of
information and subsequent
analysis by providing a system
to help investigators:
•Plan and prepare for interviews
and gathering
information;
•Take notes during interviews;
•Summarise the information from
interviews and other
sources; and
•Evaluate the quality of the
interviews and sources of
information.

Evaluation concludes the P.E.A.C.E.

procedure.
You need to evaluate from the
interview:
• the information obtained
• the whole investigation in the
light of the information
obtained
• your performance, either alone or
jointly in the case of
more than one interviewer.
Evaluate the Information Obtained
Evaluate the information provided
during the interview and
ask yourself the following question:
 “What effect has this new
information had on the
investigation as a whole?”

Lesson 5 – Interviewing Witnesses

LEARNING ACTIVITY: ASK YOUR WITNESS

Lesson 5.1 – Types of Witnesses

Lesson 5.2 – Interviewing Witnesses

LESSON OBJECTIVE: APPLY the PEACE model in investigative

interviewing in a simulated interview

Instructions to
Time Allocation Material Needed Mechanics
Trainers

1. The class shall ● Victim – Rose de

be divided into Leon in the
groups of 5 Cybercrime
members each. scenario
The groups shall ● Arresting Officer
appoint a leader, – PSMS Addictus
a reporter, and a Dela Bato in the
note-taker. drugs scenario
for the chain of
2. Each group will custody lesson
be tasked to ● Eyewitness –
1 hour simulate an Juan dela Cruz in
● Instructions – interview of a the Terrorism &
5 min witness: Terrorism
● Group Activity - PPT on
Financing
– 25 min instructions ● Group 1: scenario
● Plenary – 20 -Case Scenario Victim ● Child Witness –
min ● Group 2: BBB or CCC in the
● Processing – Arresting TIP-OSAEC
10 min Officer scenario
● Group 3:
Eyewitness ● NOTE:
● Group 4: COMMENT ON
Child witness THE
APPLICATION OF
3. The other THE PEACE
members of the MODEL DURING
group shall play THE ROLE
the role of PLAYING
interviewee.
Session 6: Affidavit Writing
1. Types of Affidavits
2. Purpose
3. Parts
4. Affidavit Drafting

Session Objective: By the end of this module, the participants should be able
to correctly draft an affidavit using the five cardinal rules of investigation.
Content Methodology

1. What is an affidavit?
A written statement sworn before a A. Tell and Show
notary or other officers entitled to
administer oaths or take This module is delivered through an
acknowledgements interactive lecturette.

Synchronous/in-person session:
2. What is the primary
qualification of an affiant? PowerPoint slides for interactive
Primary qualification is that the lecturette (30 minutes).
affiant has knowledge of the facts
which he states and the truth of
which he affirms. 2. Do

FORMS of Affidavit : 3. Group work with a case scenario

(60 minutes)
Question and Answer:

Parts of a sworn statement:

● preliminary statement
● stating the name and
address of the affiant
● the name of the
investigator taking the
statement
● the office and address
where the statement is
being taken
● the name of the witness/s

Narrative
(adopted as part of the
testimony of the witness)

● caption
● narrative statement
 ● signature of affiant
● signature of the
administering officer
● certification of the
administering officer

Judicial Affidavit

Affidavit’s Purpose :

[Link] state a fact.

[Link] preserve testimony.
[Link] attest to the truth of the
written testimony.
[Link] be used as witness testimony
in lieu of long (oral) direct
testimony.

Parts of an affidavit :
1. Head
Scilicet
- Indicates the country of
execution.
- The “SS” beside it to specify
the venue.

2. Trunk

- the name of the legal

document
- the affiant
- State the complete
name of the
affiant/s, personal
circumstances,
designation
- body

3. Limb

- clause
- jurat
- certification

Writing Process

1. How to write a good affidavit

?
Clear , Concise and Categorical

● Use specific words

● Use open ended questions
● Active voice
● Avoid unnecessary
facts/points
● One sentence, one point
● One paragraph, one point
[Link]
● State all the necessary
facts.
● Content must show the
elements of the crime,
identities of victim and
accused, date and place
of commission of the
crime.
● Content must show how
evidence was obtained.
● Authenticate.
● Show how the evidence
relates to the facts.

TIPS
•Master the basics of affidavit
writing.
•Review your work. Double check.
Ask others to check it for you. If
others can understand it, then it is
good to go.
•Be original. Use previous affidavits
as guide only, do not copy and
paste.
•Always improve how you write.
Learn. Be open to criticism.
•Remember, you want your affidavit
to be understood by a very busy
person (Prosecutor).

•If an affiant is a minor, his/her

affidavit must be accompanied by
the signature of a parent or social
worker.
•Translate to English or Filipino, if
interview was conducted in
vernacular.
•State that the contents of the
affidavit were explained to the
affiant in his/her language.
•Must be subscribed before a
prosecutor.

BODY : Victim’s Affidavit

Basic information about victim :

● name
● family
● date of birth
● parents
● work of parents
● vulnerable circumstances,
if applicable

Story leading to exploitation:

● how committed (details of
incident)
● what happened
● when
● who did it
● where it happened
● other relevant details and
personal circumstances
during the incident of
exploitation

(Present a sample format of

Sworn Statement - narrative
and Q & A format)

Session 6: Affidavit Writing

Learning Activity No. 1

 “Drafting an Affidavit”
Session Objective: By the end of this module, the participants should be able to
correctly draft an affidavit using the five cardinal rules of investigation.

Time Material Instructions to

Mechanics
Allocation Needed Trainers

TOTAL: 60 - PPT on Mechanics:

minutes instructions Processing
-Case 1. Based on the case Questions:
Scenario scenarios used in the
(Mechanics:5 previous Modules, 1. What do you find
min participants shall draft important, if any, in
the affidavit of the the discussion?
Activity: 30 following:
minutes [Link] there anything
that you discussed
Processing:10 ● Victim – Rose de today that is
mins) Leon in the particularly relevant to
Cybercrime you and/or your work?
scenario
● Arresting Officer – 3. What do you see as
PSMS Addictus Dela benefits of applying
Bato in the drugs the learnings from this
scenario for the lesson?
chain of custody
lesson
● Eyewitness – Juan
dela Cruz in the
Terrorism &
Terrorism Financing
scenario
● Child Witness – BBB
or CCC in the TIP-
OSAEC scenario

I. Learning Activity
#2:
II. SPOT REPORT
(The GRAND
SCENARIO)
 • Instructions – 5 min
• Group Activity – 20 min
• Plenary – 20 min
• Processing – 15 min

Mechanics:

1. The class shall be

divided into groups of 5
members each. The
groups shall designate
a discussion leader, a
note-taker, and a
reporter.

2. A case scenario will be

given to each group
who, after going over
the same, shall be
asked to answer the
question:

“What investigative
tool/s should be used in
the scenario?”.

3. The participants shall

be encouraged to make
use of all the tools
learned from all the
sessions.

SPOT REPORTS FOR LEARNING ACTIVITY ON

INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS
SPOT REPORT CYBERCRIME
Republic of the Philippines
Department of the Interior and Local Government
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
[Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center / Anti-Cybercrime Group]
Camp Crame, Quezon City
MEMORANDUM
FOR: Director, PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group
FROM: Chief, Makati City Police District
SUBJECT: Spot Report on Alleged Cybercrime Incident
DATE: June 5, 2025

1. Reference:

a. Complaint received via [platform, e.g., email, hotline] on June 5, 2025

b. Initial report logged under Entry No. [XXXX]
2. Incident Details:

On or about June 5, 2025, at approximately 10:00 AM, a report was received

regarding an alleged cybercrime incident involving unauthorized access to the
personal email account of Mr. Juan Dela Cruz, a resident of Makati City. The
complainant reported that unknown individuals accessed his email account without
consent and sent fraudulent messages to his contacts, soliciting money under false
pretenses.
3. Initial Investigation:

● The unauthorized access occurred on June 4, 2025, at around 9:00 PM.

● The suspect(s) used the compromised email account to send messages
claiming that Mr. Dela Cruz was in an emergency situation and needed
immediate financial assistance.
● Several contacts reported receiving these messages and some sent money to
the provided bank account details.
● Preliminary digital forensics indicate that the unauthorized access originated
from an IP address located in Quezon City.
4. Actions Taken:

● The incident was recorded in the police blotter for documentation.

● The complainant was advised to secure his email account and change all
associated passwords.
● A request for preservation of electronic evidence has been sent to the email
service provider.
● Coordination with the bank involved is underway to trace and possibly
freeze the recipient account.
● Further investigation is being conducted to identify and apprehend the
suspect(s).
5. Recommendation:

● Initiate a formal cybercrime investigation under Republic Act No. 10175

(Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012).
 ● Engage with the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC)
for technical assistance.
● Advise the public to be cautious of unsolicited messages requesting financial
assistance and to verify such claims through direct communication.
Prepared by:

PSMS Hipolito Andaya

[Badge Number 123456]
[Designation]
Reviewed and Approved by:

P/Lt Col Jaime Andiong Chief of Police]

[Badge Number 78549
Chief of Police
Makati City Police District

SPOT REPORT DRUGS

Republic of the Philippines
Department of the Interior and Local Government
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
Makati City District
Makati City Police Station

MEMORANDUM FOR: P/Col. Andrew Sangalang, Provincial Director

FROM: P/Maj Aquil Hagdan, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: SPOT REPORT – Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation (Buy-Bust)
DATE: June 5, 2025

1. Reference:
a. Pre-Operational Control Number: 123456
b. PDEA Coordination Number: 9875-D

2. Information:
a. What: Arrest of Alexander Drey, alias “Alex,” for violation of R.A. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
b. When: At about 3:00 A.M. on June 5, 2025.
c. Where: Purok 5, Barangay Maligaya, Makati City, NCR
d. Who:
 ● Suspect: Alexander Drey alias “Alex” 53 years old, Married, Call Center
Agent, and resident of 541 Bagong Bayan, Sta Elena, Makati City
● Arresting Team: PSMS Henry Tinga, PSMS Juliano Saga, PSMS Harold
dela Vega

e. How:
A buy-bust operation was conducted by Makati City Police Station, led by PSMS
Henry Tinga, in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA). The operation resulted in the arrest of the suspect and the confiscation of
the following items:

● 1 pack of suspected shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) weighing

approximately 20.67 grams.
● Buy-bust money amounting to ₱1,000 genuine money with markings and
boodle money.
● One (1) mobile phone.

3. Action Taken:
The suspect was informed of his constitutional rights and brought to Makati City
Police Station for documentation and proper disposition. The confiscated items
were inventoried in the presence of the suspect, a barangay official, and a media
representative, in compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. Charges for violation of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 are being prepared against the suspect.

4. Disposition:
The suspects are currently under the custody of Makati City Jail, pending the filing
of appropriate charges. The seized items have been submitted to the [Insert Crime
Laboratory Name] for qualitative and quantitative examination.

SPOT REPORT OSAEC

Republic of the Philippines

Department of the Interior and Local Government
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
Makati Police District
Makati Police Precinct
SPOT REPORT

DATE: June 5, 2025

TIME: 10:00 AM
LOCATION: Barangay 123, Makati City, NCR
SUBJECT: Alleged Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children (OSAEC)
Incident

1. Reference:

● Report received from [CyberTipline, local resident] on June 5, 2025

● Blotter Entry No. 123456
2. Brief Facts of the Case:

On June 5, 2025, at approximately 10:00 AM, Makati Police Precinct received

information regarding a suspected case of Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of
Children (OSAEC) occurring in Barangay 123, Makati City, NCR The report
indicated that minors were being exploited online through the production and
distribution of child sexual abuse materials.
3. Actions Taken:

● Coordinated with the Women and Children Protection Center (WCPC) and
the Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) for technical assistance.
● Conducted a preliminary investigation to verify the authenticity of the
report.
● Secured necessary search warrants from the appropriate judicial authority.
● Executed the search warrant at the identified location, resulting in the
seizure of electronic devices and other pertinent evidence.
● Rescued two (2) minors, who were immediately turned over to the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) for proper care
and intervention.
● Arrested Arnel Magalang and Susan Magalang, who were informed of their
constitutional rights and brought to Makati City Jail for custody.
● Documented the scene and collected digital evidence in accordance with
established protocols.
4. Disposition:

The arrested individuals are currently detained at the Makati City Jail, pending the
filing of appropriate charges under Republic Act No. 11930, also known as the
"Anti-Online Sexual Abuse or Exploitation of Children (OSAEC) and Anti-Child
Sexual Abuse or Exploitation Materials (CSAEM) Act." The rescued minors are
under the care of the DSWD, receiving necessary psychological and medical
support.
5. Investigator on Case:

PSMS Juan Arcadio

[Badge No. 123456]
[Contact No. 0912-34-56-78
6. Remarks:

Further investigation is ongoing to identify other potential victims and

collaborators. A progress report will be submitted as developments arise.
Prepared by:

PSMS Jose Pama

Badge No. 123456

Reviewed and Approved by:

P/Lt Col. Pedro Magaling

[Badge No. 564789]
Chief of Police
Makati City District

SPOT REPORT TERRORISM

Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
Philippine National Police
Makati City Police Station
Makati Central Police Precinct
SPOT REPORT

DATE: June 5, 2025

TIME: 10:00 AM
LOCATION: Main Entrance, Makati Central Mall, Makati City
SUBJECT: Unattended Suspicious Package Incident

1. Reporting Officer:
[PSMS Jeffrey dela Cruz]
[Badge No. 123456]

2. Incident Details:
On June 5, 2025, at approximately 10:00 AM, a report was received regarding a
suspicious package left unattended near the main entrance of Makati Central Mall.
A lone male individual, described as having short dark hair and a medium build,
wearing a dark blue jacket and jeans, was observed placing the package before
leaving the area. The package is a cardboard box with no visible markings. The
suspect was seen departing the vicinity in a white sedan.
3. Immediate Actions Taken:

● Mall security was promptly alerted and initiated standard lockdown

procedures for the affected area.
● The Makati City Police Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team was
dispatched to the scene.
● The area surrounding the package was cordoned off to ensure public safety.
● CCTV footage from the mall and surrounding establishments is being
reviewed to assist in identifying the suspect and the vehicle involved.

4. Current Status:
As of this report, the EOD team is on-site conducting an assessment of the
suspicious package. Further updates will be provided as the situation develops.
5. Recommendations:

● Continue to monitor the situation and provide timely updates to all relevant
authorities.
● Enhance security measures in and around the mall premises.
● Encourage the public to report any suspicious activities or items to
authorities immediately.

Prepared by:
[PSMS Juan delos Reyes]
[654321]

Reviewed and Approved by:

P/Lt Abdul Haran]
[246531]
Chief of Police, Makati City Police Station
 Republika ng Pilipinas
KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
Department of Justice
Manila

TRAINING & EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS

(TEPLEA 2025)

SESSION PLAN

Module 5:
Harnessing Investigative Tools and Techniques

MODULE OBJECTIVES: By end of this Module, the participants will be able to:

1) Correctly use the appropriate investigative tools in identifying, gathering, and preserving evidence in a given set of facts.

Lesson 1 – Searches and Seizures

Lesson 1.1 – Search Warrants and Cybercrime Warrants

a. Application
b. Implementation
Lesson 1.2 – Search Without Warrants
Lesson 1.3 – Possible Offenses for Violations (Article 128, 129, and 130 of the RPC)

LESSON OBJECTIVES: By end of this Lesson, participants will be able to:

1. Prepare a case folder containing the complete requirements to support an application for a search warrant in a given set
of facts; and
2. Correctly demonstrate the implementation of a search warrant.
 2
TEPLEA 2025

ACTIVITY and EQUIPMENT and

DURATION CONTENT TRAINER’S NOTES
DELIVERY MODE MATERIALS NEEDED
1.5 hours  Search Warrants and I. Interactive Lecturette: Search and  Laptop & projector
Cybercrime Warrants Seizure (30 minutes)  Powerpoint slides
 Search without Warrants
 Possible Offenses in II. Learning Activity – (60 minutes)
Case of Violation (Article
128, 129 and 130 of Mechanics:
RPC)
1. The class shall be divided into groups of 5
members each.

2. Each group will prepare a case folder

containing complete requirements to support
an application for search warrant.

3. Each group will report to the plenary for 3

minutes.

4. After all groups have presented, the facilitator

will process the activity.

Case Scenario (in PowerPoint slide):

CI reports that X is selling shabu at his house in

Purok 1, Barangay 2, Municipality 3, Batangas.
According to the CI, X also allows his clients to
use a room in his house where they can use
shabu for a fee. Act on the information.

30 minutes Cybercrime Warrants I. Interactive Lecturette: Cybercrime  10 Questions for

Warrants (20 minutes) Learning Activity
 3
TEPLEA 2025

 Metacards
II. Learning Activity – “Couple, Connect,  Markers
Correct” (10 minutes)

Mechanics:

1. Participants shall be grouped into pairs and

shall stand back-to-back each other. They
should each have a metacard and a marker.

2. A question will be asked and the pairs will

write their answers on the metacard.

3. A pair earns a point if they both get the

correct answer to a question. Otherwise, no
point will be earned.

4. The pair who gets the highest points at the

end of 10 questions wins the learning activity.

Lesson 2 – Arrests

Lesson 2.1 – Arrest with Warrant

Lesson 2.2 – Arrest without Warrant
Lesson 2.3 – Possible Offenses in Case of Violation (Article 124 and 125 of RPC)

LESSON OBJECTIVE: By end of this Lesson, participants will be able to correctly determine whether a warrantless arrest in a
given set of facts is valid of not.
EQUIPMENT and
DURATION CONTENT ACTIVITY and DELIVERY MODE TRAINER’S NOTES
MATERIALS NEEDED
 4
TEPLEA 2025

1 hour  Search Warrants and I. Interactive Lecturette (30 minutes)  Laptop & projector 5.
Cybercrime Warrants  Powerpoint slides
 Search without Warrants II. Learning Activity – “Huli Ka!” (30 min)  Case scenarios
 Possible Offenses in  “YES” and “NO” flaglets
Case of Violation (Article Mechanics:
128, 129 and 130 of
RPC) 1. Scenarios on warrantless arrests will be
flashed on the screen.

2. Each participant shall be given 2 flaglets (1

“Yes” and 1 “No”). will raise the YES flag if it
is a valid warrantless arrest, or the NO flag if
it is not a valid warrantless arrest.

3. Facilitator shall ask some participants to

explain their answers.

4. Processing will happen after every

question/scenario and answer.

Lesson 3 – Rule on Body-Worn Cameras

Lesson 3.1 – Scope and Applicability

Lesson 3.2 – Procedure
a. Before Execution
b. During Execution
c. After Execution
Lesson 3.3 – Consequence of Non-Compliance
a. Non-Admissibility of Evidence
b. Liability of Law Enforcers
 5
TEPLEA 2025

LESSON OBJECTIVE: By end of this Lesson, participants will be able to correctly demonstrate the step-by-step procedure in the
use of a body-worn camera in a given set of facts.

EQUIPMENT and
DURATION CONTENT ACTIVITY and DELIVERY MODE TRAINER’S NOTES
MATERIALS NEEDED
30 min  A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC I. Lecturette
(Rules on the Use of
Body-Worn Cameras in
the Execution of
Warrants)
30 min II. Learning Activity

Mechanics:

 Instructions – 5 min
 Group discussion – 30 min
 Plenary – 20 min
 Processing – 5 min

1. The class shall be divided into groups of 5

members each. Each group shall designate a
discussion leader, a note-taker and a
reporter.

2. A case scenario involving the implementation

of a search warrant will be given to the class.
Groups shall discuss the answers to the
questions.

3. In the plenary, each group shall report on

their outputs for 5 minutes.
 6
TEPLEA 2025

Lesson 4 – Evidence Gathering and Handling

Lesson 4.1 – Identification
a. Object
b. Documentary
c. Testimonial
Lesson 4.2 – Collection
a. Chain of Custody
Lesson 4.3 – Preservation
Lesson 4.4 – Presentation

LESSON OBJECTIVES: By end of this Lesson, participants will be able to correctly:

1. Identify the types of physical evidence found at a crime scene;

2. Describe how to collect and preserve evidence in a given case scenario.
3. Accurately document the collection and preservation of evidence and explain the chain of custody.

EQUIPMENT and
DURATION CONTENT ACTIVITY and DELIVERY MODE TRAINER’S NOTES
MATERIALS NEEDED
1 hour I. Evidence Handling in I. Interactive Lecturette (30 minutes)  Laptop & projector 
Drug Cases  Powerpoint slides
II. Chain of Custody II. Learning Activity: “Pulis, Handa Ka Na  Printouts of the 3 case
Ba?” scenarios
 Easel Board with
 Instructions – 5 min Sheets
 Group Activity – 20 min  Markers
 Plenary – 30 min  Answer Sheets
 Processing – 5 min

Mechanics:

1. The class shall be divided into groups of 5

members each. Each group shall appoint a
 7
TEPLEA 2025

discussion leader, a secretary, a reporter,

and a timekeeper.

2. Case scenarios shall be given for each group

to read and study. They shall write their
answers the questions on the easel boards
provided.

3. Each group shall have 5 minutes to report on

their answers.

Lesson 5 – Interviewing Witnesses

Lesson 5.1 – Types of Witnesses

Lesson 5.2 – Interviewing Witnesses

LESSON OBJECTIVE: By end of this Lesson, participants will be able to conduct an effective interview of a witness.

EQUIPMENT and
DURATION CONTENT ACTIVITY and DELIVERY MODE TRAINER’S NOTES
MATERIALS NEEDED
1 hour  Types of Witnesses I. Interactive Lecturette (30 minutes)  Victim – Rose de Leon in
 Interviewing Witnesses the Cybercrime scenario
II. Learning Activity: “Ask Your Witness”  Arresting Officer – PSMS
Addictus Dela Bato in
 Instructions – 5 min the drugs scenario for
 Group Activity – 25 min the chain of custody
 Plenary – 20 min lesson
 Processing – 10 min  Eyewitness – Juan dela
Cruz in the Terrorism &
Mechanics:
 8
TEPLEA 2025

Terrorism Financing
1. The class shall be divided into groups of 5 scenario
members each. The groups shall appoint a  Child Witness – BBB or
leader, a reporter, and a note-taker. CCC in the TIP-OSAEC
scenario
2. Each group will be tasked to simulate an
interview of a witness:

 Group 1: Victim
 Group 2: Arresting Officer
 Group 3: Eyewitness
 Group 4: Child witness

3. The other members of the group shall play

the role of interviewee.

Lesson 6 – Affidavit-Drafting

Lesson 6.1 – Types of Affidavits

Lesson 6.2 – Purpose/s of Affidavits
Lesson 6.3 – Parts of Affidavits

LESSON OBJECTIVES: By end of this Lesson, participants will be able to:

1. Effectively use open-ended questioning techniques in order to elicit detailed information from witnesses.

EQUIPMENT and
DURATION CONTENT ACTIVITY and DELIVERY MODE TRAINER’S NOTES
MATERIALS NEEDED
30 minutes  Types of Affidavits I. Interactive Lecturette  Laptop & projector
 Purpose/s of Affidavits  Powerpoint slides
 9
TEPLEA 2025

 Parts of Affidavits
1 hour Affidavit-Drafting II. Learning Activity #1: Drafting of  Case scenarios  The trainer-facilitator
Affidavits  Standards/Answer key shall provide feedback
on the outputs based on
Mechanics: the standards or answer
keys which the training
1. Based on the case scenarios used in the team prepared for this
previous Modules, participants shall draft the activity.
affidavit of the following:

 Victim – Rose de Leon in the Cybercrime

scenario
 Arresting Officer – PSMS Addictus Dela
Bato in the drugs scenario for the chain of
custody lesson
 Eyewitness – Juan dela Cruz in the
Terrorism & Terrorism Financing scenario
 Child Witness – BBB or CCC in the TIP-
OSAEC scenario

1 hour III. Learning Activity #2: SPOT REPORT  Printed copies of case
(The GRAND SCENARIO) scenarios/Spot Reports
 Standards/Answer Key
• Instructions – 5 min
• Group Activity – 20 min
• Plenary – 20 min
• Processing – 15 min

Mechanics:

1. The class shall be divided into groups of 5

members each. The groups shall designate a
 10
TEPLEA 2025

discussion leader, a note-taker, and a

reporter.

2. A case scenario will be given to each group

who, after going over the same, shall be
asked to answer the question:

“What investigative tool/s should be used in

the scenario?”.

3. The participants shall be encouraged to make

use of all the tools learned from all the
sessions.