People vs. Asjali

Failure to observe the mandatory chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165—specifically the immediate marking, physical inventory, and photograph of seized drugs in the presence of the accused and required witnesses—without any justifiable ground and without proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, is fatal to the prosecution’s case and entitles the accused to acquittal.

On August 19, 2003, acting on a tip from a confidential informant that Yasser Abbas Asjali was selling shabu at the local wharf in Zone 4, Sta. Barbara, Zamboanga City, the Zamboanga City Mobile Group organized a buy-bust team. PO2 Albert I. Seril served as poseur-buyer, backed by SPO1 Samuel T. Jacinto and SPO2 Jason M. Lahaman. The operation resulted in Asjali’s arrest and the seizure of three heat-sealed plastic straws containing a white crystalline substance later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. Asjali denied the charges, claiming he was arrested while playing cards and was told he would be charged with illegal gambling.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: On August 19, 2003, SPO1 Samuel T. Jacinto, head of the intelligence section of the Zamboanga City Mobile Group, received information from a confidential informant that Yasser Abbas Asjali was peddling shabu at the local wharf in Zone 4, Sta. Barbara, Zamboanga City. PC/Insp. Nickson Babul Muksan, the group director, organized a buy-bust team. PO2 Albert I. Seril was designated poseur-buyer, with SPO1 Jacinto and SPO2 Jason M. Lahaman as backups. After a briefing, the team and the informant proceeded to the wharf around 5:00 p.m.
• The Sale and Arrest: After ten to twenty minutes of waiting, the informant spotted accused standing beside a cigarette vendor. PO2 Seril and the informant approached accused; the informant, speaking the Tausug dialect, introduced PO2 Seril. Accused agreed to sell shabu for ₱100.00. PO2 Seril handed over the marked ₱100.00-bill (serial number CK 705444) and received one sachet of shabu. PO2 Seril then scratched his head—the pre-arranged signal. SPO1 Jacinto and SPO2 Lahaman approached, identified themselves as police officers, and arrested accused.
• Post-Arrest Search and Seizure: Incident to the warrantless arrest, SPO1 Jacinto searched accused’s body and recovered the marked ₱100.00-bill and two more sachets of shabu from accused’s right pants’ pocket. The buy-bust team then transported accused to the police station.
• Marking and Turnover at the Station: At the police station, PO2 Seril and SPO1 Jacinto turned over the three sachets of shabu and the marked money to the investigator, P/Insp. Eulogio A. Tubo. It was P/Insp. Tubo—not any member of the buy-bust team—who marked the sachets: the one sold to the poseur-buyer as “ET-1,” and the two seized from accused’s possession as “ET-2” and “ET-3.” No evidence showed that the marking was done in the presence of accused.
• Physical Inventory and Photograph: The records contained no stipulation, affidavit, or testimony indicating that a physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs were conducted immediately at the place of arrest or later at the police station. No certificate of inventory, inventory receipt, or photograph of the seized items was attached to the record. There was no showing that representatives from the media, the Department of Justice, or an elected public official were present to witness the inventory together with accused or his representative or counsel.
• Laboratory Examination: P/Insp. Tubo prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination and forwarded the specimens to P/Supt. Mercedes D. Diestro, a forensic chemist. Chemistry Report No. D-344-2003 confirmed that the specimens—0.0111 gram from ET-1 and a total of 0.0186 gram from ET-2 and ET-3—tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.
• Defense Version: Accused Yasser Abbas Asjali denied the charges. He testified that he was a laborer at the local wharf. On the afternoon of August 19, 2003, while waiting for a vessel and playing the card game tong-its with two companions in full public view, three armed men suddenly approached and tried to apprehend the group. His companions fled; accused was taken into custody and brought to the central police office. The police confiscated the playing cards and money from the game and informed him he would be charged for playing tong-its. He only learned of the drug charges when he appeared before the trial court. His 11-year-old daughter, Nijar Asjali, corroborated his account.

• Dubious Entrapment Operation: Accused-appellant maintained that the buy-bust operation was irregular because it was not coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the confidential informant was never identified or presented as a witness, no prior surveillance was conducted, and SPO1 Jacinto admitted he did not actually see PO2 Seril hand over money in exchange for shabu.
• Breach of Chain of Custody: Accused-appellant argued that the chain of custody mandated by law was not substantially followed. No marking, physical inventory, or photograph of the seized sachets was taken in his presence or in the presence of his counsel, representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, or an elected public official immediately after the buy-bust operation.
• Absorption of Illegal Possession: Accused-appellant contended that since both criminal cases arose from the same transaction, the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. 4996 should have been deemed absorbed by the charge and conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. 4995.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Respondent maintained that the prosecution established all elements of the crimes charged and that the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs were preserved through an unbroken chain of custody. Respondent invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the buy-bust team and argued that any procedural lapses did not undermine the evidentiary value of the seized items.

• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized shabu through an unbroken chain of custody in accordance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, thereby proving the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.
• Absorption: Whether the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs should be deemed absorbed by the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

• Chain of Custody: The prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti because the first link in the chain of custody was fatally broken. The three sachets of shabu were not marked by any member of the buy-bust team immediately upon seizure at the place of arrest and in the presence of accused; the marking was instead performed later at the police station by the investigator, P/Insp. Tubo, with no proof accused was present. No physical inventory or photograph was conducted immediately after seizure in the presence of accused or his representative/counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. No inventory receipt, certificate, or photograph was produced. These omissions violated the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR. The saving clause under the IRR did not apply because the prosecution neither recognized nor offered any justifiable ground for the lapses, nor did it prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved despite the non-compliance. The breakdown of the very first link raised reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones allegedly seized from accused.
• Absorption: In light of the acquittal grounded on the failure to establish the corpus delicti, the issue of absorption was rendered moot and was not passed upon.

• Corpus Delicti in Drug Cases — In prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Its identity and integrity must be proven with unwavering exactitude, requiring the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized item from the moment of confiscation to its presentation in court.
• Four Links of Chain of Custody — The chain of custody in a buy-bust situation consists of: (1) seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.
• Immediate Marking in the Presence of the Accused — Marking, the affixing of the apprehending officer’s or poseur-buyer’s initials or other identifying signs on the dangerous drugs or related items, must be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. It is indispensable to the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, serving to forestall switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
• Strict Compliance with Section 21, RA 9165 — Section 21(1) of RA 9165 and its IRR require the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to physically inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative/counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and any elected public official, who shall be required to sign the inventory and be given a copy. Non-compliance must be accompanied by a justifiable ground and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved; otherwise, the corpus delicti is not established and acquittal must follow.

• “The first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.” (quoting People v. Gonzales) — This passage defines the indispensable nature of prompt marking for preserving the corpus delicti.
• “There is dearth of evidence in the case at bar that the buy-bust team complied with the prescribed procedure for handling the alleged illegal drugs from accused-appellant. … Ultimately, the corpus delicti has not been satisfactorily established by the prosecution in this case. That the prosecution failed to present evidence to account for the very first link in the chain of custody already puts the rest of the chain into question and compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the three sachets of shabu supposedly seized from accused-appellant.” — This summarizes the fatal effect of the first-link breakdown on the entire prosecution case.

• People v. Calates, G.R. No. 214759, April 4, 2018 — Followed; defined corpus delicti as the body or substance of the crime, which in drug cases is the dangerous drug itself.
• People v. Calvelo, G.R. No. 223526, December 6, 2017 — Followed; reiterated the four links in the chain of custody and the requirement of proving the identity of the dangerous drug beyond reasonable doubt.
• People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 130-131 (2013) — Followed; established the rule that marking must be made immediately upon confiscation in the presence of the accused and underscored its importance for preserving the integrity of the evidence.
• People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 230228, December 13, 2017 — Followed; held that the saving clause under the IRR applies only where the prosecution recognizes the procedural lapses, explains the justifiable grounds, and establishes that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence have been preserved.

• Sections 5 and 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Define and penalize illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Applied as the substantive offenses charged; conviction required proof of the corpus delicti.
• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Prescribes the procedure for custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs, requiring the apprehending team to immediately after seizure physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused, media, DOJ, and an elected public official. The prosecution’s failure to comply with these requirements without justification was the basis for reversal.
• Section 21(a), Article II, Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 — Elaborates on the inventory and photograph procedure and contains the saving clause that non-compliance under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value are preserved, does not void the seizure. The saving clause was held inapplicable due to the absence of any explanation or proof of preservation.

Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice; Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice; Noel Gimenez Tijam, Associate Justice. (Mariano C. Del Castillo, Associate Justice, on official leave.)