People vs. Cabriole

In drug prosecutions, immediate marking of seized drugs by the apprehending officer is the first and most crucial step to establish an unbroken chain of custody; failure to immediately mark the item and storing it unsealed in an officer's pocket for an indefinite period, without justifiable grounds, compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and warrants acquittal for reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the validity of the warrantless arrest.

On October 16, 2016, operatives of the Gingoog City Police Station conducted a buy-bust operation in Purok 4, Barangay 18-A, Gingoog City, targeting accused-appellant Gabriel Campugan Cabriole and his co-accused Daniel Gumanit Abad. PO1 Armand Lenard Doño acted as poseur-buyer, armed with a P500 bill bearing serial number EX265351. The operation utilized the removal of sunglasses as a pre-arranged signal to indicate the consummation of the sale.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: At approximately 1:57 PM on October 16, 2016, PO1 Doño approached the accused in Purok 4, Barangay 18-A, Gingoog City. PO1 Doño handed the marked P500 bill to Daniel Abad, who in turn gave it to Cabriole as payment for one sachet of shabu. Cabriole allegedly handed the sachet to Abad, who then delivered it to PO1 Doño. Upon receiving the item, PO1 Doño removed his sunglasses—the pre-arranged signal—prompting the backup officers to move in. Cabriole was apprehended while Abad evaded arrest.
• The Search and Seizure: Following the arrest, PO3 Keith Javier searched Cabriole and recovered from his right lower middle pocket three additional heat-sealed plastic sachets containing suspected shabu, the marked P500 bill, and aluminum foil strips.
• Inventory and Custody: PO3 Javier conducted the physical inventory and marking of the three sachets found in Cabriole's possession at the scene of the operation, in the presence of Cabriole, media representative Rita Endrina, and Barangay Kagawad Judith Ratilla. SPO1 Sofia Pensinabes photographed the proceedings. However, with respect to the sachet allegedly sold to PO1 Doño, the poseur-buyer admitted during trial that he did not mark it immediately upon seizure; instead, he placed it in his right pocket, brought it to a different location where he dropped the confidential informant, blended with the crowd for ten to twenty minutes, and only then turned it over to PO3 Javier for marking.
• Laboratory Examination: PCI Joseph Esber received the seized items at the PNP Crime Laboratory and conducted examination. Chemistry Report No. D-98-2016 MIS OR confirmed that all four sachets yielded positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
• Defense Evidence: Cabriole denied the charges, alleging that he was merely sent by his grandmother to buy Coke when he encountered masked men chasing neighbors. He claimed that PO3 Pontillas planted the evidence by inserting items into his pocket while he was forced to the ground, and that PO3 Javier later recovered these planted items.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: Cabriole maintained that the removal of the poseur-buyer's sunglasses could not constitute a reasonable ground for a valid warrantless arrest, arguing that the arresting officers lacked personal knowledge of the commission of the offense at the moment of arrest.
• Chain of Custody for Illegal Sale: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the sachet allegedly sold, citing PO1 Doño's admission that he failed to immediately mark the item and kept it unsealed in his pocket for a significant period before turnover, rendering the integrity of the corpus delicti doubtful.
• Chain of Custody for Illegal Possession: Petitioner contended that the chain was broken because the evidence custodian, PO3 Dagatan, was not presented in court to testify regarding the safekeeping of the seized items.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: The People countered that pre-arranged signals are recognized as valid methods of communicating the completion of a buy-bust operation, citing precedent. The removal of sunglasses sufficiently indicated that the sale had been consummated, justifying the immediate warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
• Establishment of Chain of Custody: Respondent argued that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody for both sets of drugs, demonstrating that the items seized were the same ones presented in court. The prosecution maintained that the testimonies of the apprehending officers sufficiently accounted for the handling, storage, and examination of the seized drugs.

• Warrantless Arrest: Whether the removal of the poseur-buyer's sunglasses constitutes a reasonable ground for a valid warrantless arrest.
• Illegal Sale Conviction: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction for violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 despite the failure to immediately mark the seized drug.
• Illegal Possession Conviction: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction for violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165.

• Warrantless Arrest: The warrantless arrest was valid. Pre-arranged signals are recognized as effective communication of the completion of a buy-bust transaction. The removal of sunglasses served as the signal that the sale had been consummated, providing the arresting officers with personal knowledge that a crime had been committed in their presence, thereby satisfying the requirements for a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the search incidental to the lawful arrest was also valid.
• Illegal Sale Conviction: The conviction for violation of Section 5 was reversed and the accused acquitted. Marking is the first and most crucial step in establishing an unbroken chain of custody. PO1 Doño's failure to immediately mark the sold sachet, combined with his admission that he kept the unsealed sachet in his pocket for an indefinite period while transporting the confidential informant to a safe location, created a reasonable probability of tampering, alteration, or substitution. The prosecution offered no justifiable ground for this non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were deemed compromised.
• Illegal Possession Conviction: The conviction for violation of Section 11 was affirmed. The chain of custody for the three sachets found in Cabriole's possession was properly established: PO3 Javier immediately marked and inventoried the items at the scene with the required witnesses (media representative and barangay kagawad), photographed them, and delivered them to PCI Esber for examination. PCI Esber testified that he tape-sealed the items and turned them over to evidence custodian PO3 Dagatan for safekeeping in a steel cabinet, and confirmed that the items presented in court were in the same condition as when he examined them. The non-presentation of PO3 Dagatan was not fatal, as the prosecution is not required to present every person who came into contact with the evidence provided the chain of custody is clearly established.

• Pre-arranged Signals in Buy-Bust Operations — The giving of a pre-arranged signal is a valid form of communication that a buy-bust operation was successful, providing the arresting team with the requisite personal knowledge to effect a warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, even if the backup officers did not witness the actual exchange.
• Chain of Custody Rule — As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, describing how and from whom it was received, where it was, what happened to it, and the precautions taken to ensure no change in condition or opportunity for unauthorized possession.
• Immediate Marking Requirement — Immediate marking of seized dangerous drugs is the first and most crucial step in proving an unbroken chain of custody. Failure to immediately mark the confiscated items casts reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and calls for acquittal, absent justifiable grounds for non-compliance.
• Justifiable Grounds for Non-Compliance — Non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not render the seizure void if: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The burden of proving these elements rests with the prosecution.
• Presentation of Chain Witnesses — It is not necessary to present all persons who came into contact with the seized drug to testify in court. As long as the chain of custody is clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution properly identifies the drugs seized, the non-presentation of an evidence custodian is not fatal to the prosecution's case.

• "Marking of the seized dangerous drugs is the first and most crucial step in proving an unbroken chain of custody in drug-related prosecutions."
• "The circumstance of PO1 Doño putting the drugs inside his right pocket and keeping it for an indefinite period of time and bringing it to the place where he dropped the confidential informant is an odd and irregular way of handling the confiscated item. This Court cannot foreclose the possibility that the seized item had been tampered with, altered, or substituted before it was marked and inventoried."
• "Keeping one of the seized items in his right pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of the items... common sense dictates that a single police officer's act of bodily-keeping the item(s) which is at the crux of offenses penalized under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is fraught with dangers."

• People v. Bautista, 682 Phil. 487 (2012) — Cited for the proposition that pre-arranged signals are valid methods of communicating the completion of a buy-bust transaction.
• People v. Siu Ming Tat, G.R. No. 246577, July 13, 2020 — Applied to illustrate that a pre-arranged signal (dialing a phone number) validates the arrest even when backup officers do not witness the actual sale.
• People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816 (2014) — Controlling precedent establishing that keeping seized drugs in an officer's pocket without immediate marking is a doubtful and suspicious way of handling evidence that compromises integrity.
• Mallillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619 — Cited for the definition of the chain of custody rule as a method of authenticating evidence.
• People v. Araza, 747 Phil. 20 (2014) — Cited for the rule that non-presentation of all persons who handled the evidence is not fatal if the chain of custody is clearly established.

• Section 5(a), Rule 113, Revised Rules of Court — Governs warrantless arrests when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer.
• Section 21(1), R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640 — Mandates that the apprehending team conduct an immediate physical inventory and photography of seized items in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media; provides that non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not invalidate the seizure if integrity and evidentiary value are preserved.
• Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes the illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Carandang, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ.