People vs. Comoso

Non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, without any showing of justifiable grounds and without affirmative steps to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, creates reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti and warrants acquittal.

On March 26, 2005, members of the Anti-Drug Special Operation Task Force and Drug Enforcement Action Division of Puerto Princesa City planned a buy-bust operation against a certain “Coro” who was reportedly selling marijuana in Barangay Bagong Sikat. A civilian asset acted as the poseur-buyer, and the police officers prepared four marked ₱100 bills. The operation was executed that afternoon. The asset gave a pre-arranged signal after receiving a plastic sachet of suspected marijuana, leading to the arrest of Dioscoro Comoso y Turemutsa. The arresting officer seized the sachet and the buy-bust money, as well as a used marijuana stick and a lighter. The seized items were eventually sent for laboratory examination, where they tested positive for marijuana. Comoso denied selling drugs and claimed the money recovered was his earnings from selling fish.

The Buy-Bust Operation: On March 26, 2005, at around 2:30 p.m., the Anti-Drug Special Operation Task Force and Drug Enforcement Action Division conducted a buy-bust operation in Quimson, Barangay Bagong Sikat, Puerto Princesa City. Their civilian asset, who acted as the poseur-buyer, was provided with four pre-recorded ₱100 bills (Serial Nos. KU494857, MB020653, QQ011743, and DD744924). Police Officer 2 Ferdinand Aquino (PO2 Aquino) and Police Officer 3 Jose Fernandez (PO3 Fernandez) positioned themselves about 50 meters from the target area while the asset waited in front of the suspect’s house.

The Exchange and Arrest: The target, identified as Dioscoro Comoso y Turemutsa, arrived and handed a plastic sachet of suspected marijuana to the asset in exchange for the buy-bust money. The asset removed his hat—the pre-arranged signal that the transaction was consummated. PO2 Aquino and PO3 Fernandez rushed to the scene and arrested Comoso and the asset. PO2 Aquino recovered the plastic sachet from the asset, while PO3 Fernandez frisked Comoso and recovered the buy-bust money, one used marijuana stick, and a lighter.

Marking and Inventory: PO2 Aquino marked the plastic sachet and the buy-bust money with his initials “FJA” at the scene. At the police station, he also marked the used marijuana stick and the lighter. He then prepared an Inventory of Confiscated Items. The testimony did not establish whether the inventory was conducted in Comoso’s presence, whether Comoso or any required witness signed it, or whether photographs were taken during the inventory.

Forensic Examination: On April 8, 2005 — 10 working days after the buy-bust operation — Police Superintendent Julita T. De Villa, a forensic chemist at the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office, MIMAROPA, received the seized specimens together with a letter-request for laboratory examination. Chemistry Report No. D-017-05 confirmed that the specimens tested positive for marijuana.

Defense Version: Comoso, a fisher residing on Liberty Road, Barangay Bagong Sikat, testified that on the afternoon of March 26, 2005, he was walking home after delivering his catch when two armed men, whom he assumed were police officers, grabbed and frisked him. They brought him to the airport, then to the police station where he was detained. The police recovered ₱420.00 from him, which he claimed was the proceeds of his fish sales. He denied selling illegal drugs.

• Non-Presentation of the Poseur-Buyer: Accused-appellant maintained that the confidential informant, who was also the poseur-buyer, was never presented in court, and that his testimony was essential to describing how the alleged sale took place.

• Breaks in the Chain of Custody: Accused-appellant argued that the chain of custody was not established because PO2 Aquino did not testify that the inventory was made in his presence or that it was signed by him; no photographs of the seized items were taken; the required witnesses (an elected public official, a representative of the National Prosecution Service, or the media) were not present; and the prosecution failed to account for the 11-day gap between the seizure and the delivery of the items to the forensic chemist. These deficiencies, he asserted, created a cloud of doubt on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.

• Sufficiency of the Transaction Evidence: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the prosecution sufficiently proved the sale because PO2 Aquino witnessed the entire exchange and testified to the sequence of events; the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was therefore not fatal.

• Presumption of Regularity: The prosecution maintained that the police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties, and that their narration of facts should be given credence.

• Integrity of the Seized Items Presumed Preserved: The OSG asserted that despite changes in custody, the totality of the evidence proved the identity of the seized drugs. It argued that the integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved absent a showing of bad faith, ill will, or evidence of tampering.

• Proof of the Illegal Sale Transaction: Whether the prosecution established the first element of illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite not presenting the confidential informant who acted as the poseur-buyer.

• Compliance with the Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution proved the second element of the offense — the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti — by establishing an unbroken chain of custody compliant with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

• Excusable Non-Compliance: Whether the law enforcement officers’ failure to observe the inventory, photograph, and witness requirements could be excused under justifiable grounds or by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

• Proof of the Illegal Sale Transaction: The first element of the offense was established. Although the confidential informant who acted as the poseur-buyer was not presented, PO2 Aquino, an arresting officer, testified that he witnessed the entire hand-to-hand exchange and identified the items recovered. The non-presentation was not fatal because the testimony of a police officer who actually saw the transaction is sufficient to prove the sale.

• Compliance with the Chain of Custody: The chain of custody was broken, and the integrity of the corpus delicti was not preserved. PO2 Aquino’s testimony did not show that the physical inventory was conducted in the presence of accused-appellant, that the latter or any required witness (an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media) signed the inventory, or that photographs were taken. There was no evidence of a turnover from the apprehending officer to an investigating officer. Moreover, the seized items were received by the forensic chemist only on April 8, 2005 — 10 working days after the operation — far beyond the 24-hour period mandated by Section 21. The prosecution offered no explanation for this delay. These gaps opened the possibility of substitution, alteration, or tampering, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the drug examined in the laboratory was the same drug seized from accused-appellant.

• Excusable Non-Compliance: The non-compliance was not excused. The prosecution did not identify or prove any justifiable grounds for the procedural lapses. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties could not apply because the official acts were irregular on their face; flagrant deviations from the standard conduct required by law negate the presumption. Without justification and without affirmative steps to preserve the evidence, the second element of the offense remained unproven, warranting acquittal.

• Chain of Custody in Dangerous Drugs Cases — The duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, safekeeping, and presentation in court. Every link must be established: (1) seizure and marking by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist; and (4) turnover and submission to the court. Failure to prove any link with moral certainty compromises the identity of the corpus delicti.

• Requisites for Excusing Non-Compliance with Section 21 — To excuse a deviation from the mandatory inventory and photograph requirements, the prosecution must satisfy two conditions: (a) identify and prove “justifiable grounds,” and (b) show that despite non-compliance, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved through positive, concrete steps. Broad generalizations and sweeping guarantees are insufficient.

• Presumption of Regularity Not Applicable to Irregular Acts — The presumption that official duties have been regularly performed applies only when nothing in the record suggests a deviation from the standard conduct required by law. Where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise; flagrant procedural lapses negate it.

• Heightened Scrutiny in Drugs Cases — Given the unique nature of narcotics — which are not readily identifiable, are subject to scientific analysis, and can easily be mistaken for everyday objects — courts must employ a more exacting standard in authenticating seized drugs. The physical similarity of narcotics to ordinary items facilitates adulteration and substitution, compelling strict compliance with the chain of custody to foreclose opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering.

• Mandate in People v. Lim — To weed out orchestrated or poorly built-up drug cases, law enforcement officers must state in their affidavits their compliance with Section 21 requirements; if non-compliance occurs, they must state the justification and the steps taken to preserve the evidence. Without such justification, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case; the court may dismiss it outright for lack of probable cause.

• “Failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements in drugs cases will result in an accused’s acquittal.” (Opening sentence encapsulating the ratio)

• “This break in the chain of custody opens up the possibility of substitution, alteration, or tampering of the seized drugs during the turn over to the chemist, especially since the amount was as little as 0.02 grams. Thus, the illegal drugs tested by the chemist may not be the same items allegedly seized by the buy-bust team from accused-appellant. The doubt that the break created should have been enough to acquit accused-appellant.” (Quoting from the concurring opinion in People v. Lim and applying it to the facts)

• “Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case…. [W]here the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.” (From People v. Kamad, cited with approval)

• “To sanction non-compliance, two requisites must be satisfied. First, the prosecution must identify and prove ‘justifiable grounds.’ Second, it must show that, despite non-compliance, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. To satisfy the second requirement, the prosecution must establish that positive steps were observed to ensure such preservation. The prosecution cannot rely on broad justifications and sweeping guarantees that the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items were preserved.” (Articulating the standard for excusable non-compliance)

• People v. Andaya, 745 Phil. 237 (2014) — Distinguished; in Andaya, the poseur-buyer/informant was the sole witness to the transaction and was not presented, whereas here an arresting officer witnessed and testified to the sale, satisfying the first element.

• People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010) — Relied upon for the rule that the presumption of regularity does not apply when law enforcers committed flagrant procedural lapses.

• People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134 (2010) — Cited for the enumeration of the four links in the chain of custody that must be established.

• Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) — Referenced for the unique nature of narcotics that requires a more stringent chain of custody.

• People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) — Invoked to underscore the need for heightened scrutiny in drug cases and that doubt arising from a broken chain compels acquittal.

• People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018 — Applied as the mandatory policy governing the prosecution of drug-related cases and the consequences of non-compliance with Section 21.

• Article II, Section 5, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The prosecution was required to prove (1) the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The first element was satisfied through the arresting officer’s testimony, but the second was not proven because the chain of custody was broken.

• Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 — Prescribes the procedure for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs, including immediate physical inventory and photographing in the presence of the accused or his representative, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, and the turnover of the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours. Non-compliance was not justified, rendering the seizure and custody irregular and the evidence inadmissible for failure to preserve the identity of the corpus delicti.

• Rule 133, Section 2, Rules of Court — Requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction. Because the integrity of the seized marijuana was not established with moral certainty, reasonable doubt persisted and acquittal was mandated.

• Article III, Section 14(2), 1987 Constitution — Presumption of innocence. The prosecution’s failure to overcome the presumption resulted in acquittal.

Peralta (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Carandang (designated additional member per Special Order No. 2624), JJ.

N/A — The decision was unanimous.