The necessity of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody and the mechanics of the custodial chain requirement

The necessity of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody and the mechanics of the custodial chain requirement were explained in Malillin v. People ,[20] thus:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[20] G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V205] PP vs Barte