People vs. Gayoso

The chain of custody requirement is indispensable in drug prosecutions to establish with moral certainty that the shabu illegally sold and possessed is the same shabu offered in court as evidence. Where the prosecution fails to establish a substantially complete chain of custody—including immediate marking of seized items in the presence of the accused, proper turnover at each stage, and compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165—the identity and integrity of the seized drugs are rendered doubtful, and the accused must be acquitted.

The appellant, Myrna Gayoso y Arguelles, was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The Philippine National Police (PNP) Guiuan Police Station had received reports that the appellant was peddling prohibited drugs, prompting PI Barber to order surveillance and subsequently apply for a search warrant. The case involved a "confirmatory test-buy operation" conducted prior to the implementation of the search warrant, followed by a search of the appellant's house where additional sachets of shabu were allegedly found.

On March 24, 2004, at about 5:00 to 5:30 in the morning, police officers from the PNP Guiuan Police Station conducted a "confirmatory test-buy" operation against the appellant, Myrna Gayoso y Arguelles, at her house in Jetty, Brgy. Hollywood, Guiuan, Eastern Samar. PI Barber had earlier directed SP03 De Dios to conduct surveillance on the appellant after receiving reports that she was peddling prohibited drugs. After three weeks of surveillance, PI Barber filed for and was issued a search warrant, but decided to conduct a confirmatory test-buy first, designating SP03 De Dios as poseur-buyer and giving him ₱200.00 marked money.

SP03 De Dios and a civilian asset approached the appellant's house and asked to buy shabu. The sale was consummated when the appellant took the marked money and gave SP03 De Dios a sachet of shabu. SP03 De Dios immediately texted PI Barber about the successful operation. PI Barber and his team, positioned 100 meters away, rushed to the house, and the Barangay Chairman, a kagawad, and a media representative were summoned to witness the search. SP03 Salamida read the search warrant to the appellant.

During the search, SP04 Bandoy found a tin foil under the mattress, which SP03 De Dios took and gave to SP03 Salamida, who found seven sachets of shabu inside. Four additional sachets were found inside the right pocket of the appellant's short pants. An inventory of seized items was prepared and signed by the Barangay Chairman, P02 Isip, SP04 Bandoy, and the appellant. The sachets were brought to the PDEA and then to the PNP Crime Laboratory for qualitative examination, which verified that the seized sachets contained shabu.

The appellant denied the charges, claiming that somebody forcibly kicked her front door and tried to break it open. When she opened the door, PI Barber pushed her aside and told his companions to move quickly. They went directly to her room, and when P02 Isip emerged, he was holding a substance that looked like tawas. She maintained that the search warrant was shown to her only after an hour and that the sachets of shabu were planted. She alleged that the police officers fabricated the charges because her family had a quarrel with a police officer named Rizalina Cuantero regarding the fence separating their houses.

The RTC found the appellant guilty, crediting the prosecution's witnesses and rejecting the defense of denial and frame-up. The CA affirmed in toto, ruling that the elements of both offenses were established and that the chain of custody was sufficiently proven.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: The appellant contended that there was no probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, claiming that PI Barber had no personal knowledge of her alleged drug dealings.
• Instigation: The appellant argued that the "confirmatory test-buy" was not valid since she was induced by the designated poseur buyer and the confidential informant to sell the seized shabu, amounting to instigation rather than entrapment.
• Chain of Custody: The appellant maintained that the shabu presented during trial was inadmissible in evidence due to several gaps in its chain of custody, including failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules.

• Probable Cause: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the evidence on which the RTC based its determination of probable cause was sufficient for the issuance of the search warrant, as the deposition of SP03 Salamida showed personal knowledge of the appellant's drug activities.
• Entrapment: The OSG asserted that the "test-buy operation" was an entrapment and not an inducement, since the solicitation of drugs from the appellant merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct.
• Chain of Custody: The OSG maintained that the shabu confiscated from the appellant was admissible in evidence since the prosecution established the proper chain of custody.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: Whether the search warrant was validly issued upon a finding of probable cause.
• Entrapment vs. Instigation: Whether the "confirmatory test-buy" operation constituted instigation, which would render the arrest and seizure invalid.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized shabu so as to preserve its identity and evidentiary value.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: Yes. The search warrant was validly issued, the trial court having deposed two witnesses—PI Barber and SP03 Salamida—whose dispositions showed personal knowledge of the appellant's drug pushing activities, which served as basis for the finding of probable cause.
• Entrapment vs. Instigation: No. The "confirmatory test-buy" operation did not constitute instigation. The solicitation of drugs from the appellant by the poseur buyer merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct; there was no proof that the poseur buyer induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs.
• Chain of Custody: No. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The arresting officers failed to mark the seized items immediately upon confiscation in the presence of the appellant, the persons who handled the evidence at each stage were not identified, and the forensic chemist failed to assert that the substance examined was the same substance seized from the appellant.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: Probable cause for a valid search warrant is defined as "such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched." The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. The records reveal that the trial court issued the search warrant after deposing PI Barber and SP03 Salamida. The disposition of SP03 Salamida showed personal knowledge of the appellant's drug pushing activities, which served as basis for the finding of probable cause. Whether PI Barber had personal knowledge of the illegal drug activities was immaterial.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation: In inducement or instigation, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigator, and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. This is distinguished from entrapment, wherein ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of capturing the lawbreaker in flagrante delicto. The "test-buy" operation is not prohibited by law and does not amount to instigation. The police received an intelligence report that the appellant habitually deals with shabu, and they designated a poseur buyer to confirm the report. There was no proof that the poseur buyer induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.

• Chain of Custody: The offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu require proof that the offenses were actually committed, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. The identity of the shabu must be established with moral certainty—the fact that the shabu illegally possessed and sold is the same shabu offered in court as exhibit must be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. The chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

The Court enumerated four links in the chain of custody: (1) seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items after they have been seized, and it must be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation.

In this case, the records do not show that the arresting officers marked the seized items with their initials in the presence of the appellant and immediately upon confiscation. While P02 Isip testified that the seized sachets were marked in the police station, no evidence was presented to show that the marking was accomplished in the presence of the appellant. The author of the markings was never identified. The failure to mark immediately after confiscation constituted the first gap in the chain of custody.

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the person to whom the seized items were turned over at the police station. While SP03 Salamida was identified as the property custodian, this does not necessarily mean he was also the investigating officer. None of the arresting officers identified the shabu presented during trial as the same shabu seized from the appellant. Thus, the second link was missing.

The seized shabu was turned over by PI Barber to the PDEA, but he no longer had personal knowledge of the manner it was handled therein. He did not identify the police officer in whose custody the seized sachets were placed at the PDEA. The request for laboratory examination identified a certain SPO1 Asis as the delivering officer, but he was not presented to testify. There was a third break in the chain of custody.

The testimony of the forensic chemist PSI Cruto was not clear and positive since he failed to assert that the packs of chemical substance presented for laboratory examination and tested positive for shabu were the very same substance allegedly recovered from the appellant. His testimony was limited to the result of the examination he conducted and not on the source of the substance.

The Court concluded that no chain of custody was established at all—what existed were individual links with breaks in-between that could not be seamlessly woven together. The apprehending officers failed to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. Additionally, the apprehending team never conducted a physical inventory of the seized items at the place where the search warrant was served in the presence of a representative of the Department of Justice, nor did it photograph the same in the presence of the appellant. No explanation was offered for such failure. The liberality allowed under the Implementing Rules and Regulations can be applied only when the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved, which was not the case here. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty could not arise given the broken linkages in the chain of custody.

• Chain of Custody Rule — 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 includes testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, such 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. The Court applied this doctrine to find that the prosecution failed to establish the four links: (1) seizure and marking, (2) turnover to the investigating officer, (3) turnover to the forensic chemist, and (4) turnover to the court.

• Marking Requirement — Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items after they have been seized. It is the starting point in the custodial link, and it is vital that the seized items be marked immediately since the succeeding handlers thereof will use the markings as reference. The chain of custody rule requires that marking be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation. While marking in the nearest police station is allowed in cases of warrantless searches and seizures, this does not apply where a search warrant was secured prior to the operation, as the police had sufficient time and opportunity to prepare for its implementation.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation — In inducement or instigation, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigator, and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. The instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal. This is distinguished from entrapment, wherein ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of capturing the lawbreaker in flagrante delicto. A "test-buy" operation is not prohibited by law and does not amount to instigation; the solicitation of drugs from the accused by the poseur buyer merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.

• Presumption of Regularity — The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty accorded to apprehending officers cannot arise where there are broken linkages in the chain of custody that generate serious uncertainty on the identity of the seized drugs. The liberality allowed under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 can be applied only when the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved.

• "In criminal prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of shabu, primordial importance must be given to 'the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.'" — This opening statement establishes the central principle governing drug prosecutions and frames the Court's analysis of the chain of custody issue.

• "The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." — This passage articulates the purpose of the chain of custody rule in drug cases, explaining why the identity of the seized drugs must be established with moral certainty.

• "While the testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness." — This passage from People v. Havana explains the strictness required in applying the chain of custody rule to fungible items like shabu that are susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination, and substitution.

• "Serious uncertainty is generated on the identity of the [shabu] in view of the broken linkages in the chain of custody. [Thus,] the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty accorded to the [apprehending officers] by the courts below cannot arise." — This passage states the Court's conclusion that the presumption of regularity cannot be invoked where the chain of custody is broken, justifying the acquittal.

• People vs. Mendoza, 683 Phil. 339 (2012) — Cited as the source of the principle that the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items is of primordial importance in drug prosecutions.

• People vs. Havana, G.R. No. 198450, January 11, 2016, 778 SCRA 524 — Controlling precedent that expounded on the custodial chain procedure, defining the chain of custody rule and the four links that must be established. The Court relied heavily on this case in finding the breaks in the chain of custody.

• People vs. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134 (2010) — Cited for the enumeration of the four links in the chain of custody of confiscated items.

• People vs. Alejandro, 671 Phil. 33 (2011) — Cited for the definition of marking and the requirement that marking be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation.

• People vs. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794 (2011) — Cited for the proposition that marking in the nearest police station is allowed only in cases of warrantless searches and seizures.

• Dr. Prudente vs. Executive Judge Dayrit, 259 Phil. 541 (1989) — Cited for the definition of probable cause for a valid search warrant.

• Columbia Pictures vs. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 875 (1996) — Cited for the requirement that probable cause be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation.

• People vs. Gatong-o, 250 Phil. 710 (1988) — Cited for the distinction between entrapment and instigation.

• People vs. Sta. Maria, 545 Phil. 520 (2007) — Cited for the proposition that a "test-buy" operation does not amount to instigation.

• People vs. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393 (2010) — Cited for the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — The provision penalizing the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The appellant was charged and convicted under this provision for selling one sachet of shabu weighing 0.06 gram during the test-buy operation.

• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — The provision penalizing the illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The appellant was charged and convicted under this provision for possessing eleven sachets of shabu weighing 0.53 gram.

• Section 21(1), Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — The provision requiring the apprehending team to physically inventory and photograph the seized drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory. The Court found that the apprehending team failed to comply with this requirement.

• Section 21(a), Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 — The provision allowing non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court held that this liberality could not be applied because the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug were not properly preserved.

• Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson)
• Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (on official leave)
• Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (on official leave)
• Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa

N/A — The case text does not indicate any dissenting opinion.