Case # 6
A conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the
drug.—Time and again, this Court has held that “the failure to establish, through
convincing proof, that the integrity of the seized items has been adequately preserved
through an unbroken chain of custody is enough to engender reasonable doubt on the
guilt of an accused. x x x A conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt
on the identity of the drug.”
G.R. No. 204441. June 8, 2016.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. MICHAEL KURT JOHN
BULAWAN y ANDALES, respondent.
PEREZ, J.:
Bulawan was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. That at more or less 10:55 in the evening at Gusa National Highway,
Cagayan de Oro City, buy-bust operation was conducted. Arresting officer IO1 Rodolfo S. de la
Cerna, Jr., acting as poseur-buyer received one (1) pack of dried marijuana fruiting tops with
stalks wrapped in a magazine paper from the accused.
Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The prosecution relied on the testimony of IO1 Rodolfo S. de la Cerna, Jr. (IO1 de la Cerna)
of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), who testified that there was already a
transaction negotiated earlier for the purchase of P11,000.00 worth of marijuana.
On cross-examination, de la Cerna testified that:
Before he arrived at Gusa the CI had already contacted the accused and that he did
not give any money to the accused. He did not also bring any money for the buy-bust
operation and that the accused delivered the marijuana even without first receiving the
money; that there was no prepayment prior to the agreed time of delivery and that he did
not promise the accused that he will pay after the delivery. He brought cell phone during
the operation while the rest of the team brought with them their firearms and some
documents.
The defense, on the other hand, hinged their case on the testimony of Bulawan, to wit:
That he was at his house preparing to sleep when he received a text message from his
friend Joey Maalyao of Camella requesting him to go out from his house and inviting him to
attend the birthday party of the classmate of his wife, a nursing student. He told Joey that he will
not go out because he was tired as he had just took an exam. However, Joey insisted so he
went out of his house and saw the service vehicle of Joey, a Tamaraw FX. He then approached
the vehicle and he became aware that there were companions inside the tinted vehicle and he
asked Joey who were these persons and Joey answered that they were his cousins. When the
engine started, and was in the vicinity of Lapasan the men inside started to search him bodily
and they got his cell phone, wallet, and coins. They held his neck and hands and told him it was
an arrest. He then asked Joey was (sic) offense had him (sic) committed against him and why
his companions were searching him and Joey told him to be considerate since he was just
pressured by those men. One of the men beside him handed marijuana to him and to use it
inside the vehicle. Then he was brought to the office and they took his picture in front of the
vehicle of his friend. He was then handcuffed by de la Cerna and was forced again to point out
to the items which were wrapped with a newspaper, then he was brought back to the office and
was detained thereat. He was later informed that the PDEA agents did it to him in exchange for
Joey because Joey was arrested in Carmen. He learned of this information from his friend who
is a neighbor of Joey in Camella and who visited him at Lumbia.7
RTC found Bulawan liable for possession of dangerous drugs.
Bulawan went before the Court of Appeals. After a review of the records, the appellate court
found accused-appellant guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165.
ISSUE:
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT A BUY-BUST OPERATION
WAS ACTUALLY CONDUCTED.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
OF THE CORPUS DELICTI WAS ESTABLISHED SUFFICIENTLY.
RULING:
In sum, accused-appellant argues that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable
doubt, and that he cannot be convicted of delivery or possession of dangerous drugs when such
was not charged in the Information.
After a thorough review of the records, we acquit accused-appellant.
In the case at bar, it is readily apparent that no sale was consummated as the consideration,
much less its receipt by accused-appellant, were not established.
In People v. Dasigan,22 where the marked money was shown to therein accused-appellant
but was not actually given to her as she was immediately arrested when the shabu was handed
over to the poseur-buyer, the Court acquitted said accused-appellant of the crime of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs. Citing People v. Hong Yen E,23 the Court held therein that it is material in
illegal sale of dangerous drugs that the sale actually took place, and what consummates the
buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller’s
receipt of the marked money. While the parties may have agreed on the selling price of
the shabu and delivery of payment was intended, these do not prove consummated sale.
Receipt of the marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after, is required.
In the case at bar, there is more reason to acquit accused-appellant of the crime of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs as the prosecution was not able to prove that there was even a
consideration for the supposed transaction.
The prosecution claimed that that there was prior negotiation between the confidential
informant and accused-appellant. The prosecution, however, failed to adduce any evidence of
such prior negotiation. In fact, nothing can be gained from the records and from the testimonies
of the witnesses as to how the supposed confidential informant conducted the alleged
negotiation with accused-appellant.
Repeatedly, this Court has reminded the prosecution of its duty to present a complete picture
of the buy-bust operation — “from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher,
the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of
the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of sale.”24
In the present case, no information was presented by the prosecution on the prior
negotiation between the confidential informant and accused-appellant. Moreover, the testimony
of IO1 de la Cerna failed to show any kind of confirmation of the alleged prior negotiation. Thus,
there is no proof of the offer to purchase dangerous drugs, as well as the promise of the
consideration.
Also, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of
the corpus delicti of the offense charged.
In People v. Torres,25 we held that the identity of the prohibited drug must be proved with
moral certainty. It must also be established with the same degree of certitude that the substance
bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit. In
this regard, paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R. A. No. 9165 (the chain of custody rule)
provides for safeguards for the protection of the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized.
However, this Court has also said that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in
reality it is not “as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.” The most
important factor is 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.27
In the case at bar, the chain of custody of the seized alleged marijuana was not sufficiently
established, thereby casting doubt on the identity and integrity of the supposed evidence.
That is all that was said as regards the handling of the seized item. The prosecution failed to
prove that the identity and integrity of the seized item was preserved — whether it was kept by
IO1 de la Cerna from the time accused-appellant allegedly handed it to him until the time he
marked it in the office, whether IO1 de la Cerna turned it over to his superior as is the usual
procedure, whether it was returned to IO1 dela Cerna for it to be brought to the crime laboratory,
whether the specimen was intact when the crime laboratory received it, whether the crime
laboratory officers marked and sealed the seized item after it was tested, and whether the
proper officers observed the mandated precautions in preserving the identity and integrity of the
seized item until it was presented in open court.
On the contrary, what we can deduce from IO1 de la Cerna’s testimony is the fact that the
seized item was not placed in a plastic container and sealed upon confiscation. As sworn to by
PSI Erma Condino Salvacion, the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory test on the
seized item, what she tested were “suspected Marijuana leaves wrapped in a magazine paper
with markings ‘RDC-D.’”29 Also, when the said item was presented in open court for
identification, it was still wrapped in magazine paper.
In the case at bar, as the seized substance was not sealed, the prosecution should have
presented all the officers who handled said evidence from the time it left the person of the
accused to the time it was presented in open court. The prosecution did not.
Time and again, this Court has held that “the failure to establish, through convincing proof,
that the integrity of the seized items has been adequately preserved through an unbroken chain
of custody is enough to engender reasonable doubt on the guilt of an accused. x x x A
conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug.”
Notes.—There are occasions when the chain of custody rule is relaxed such as when the
marking of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation is allowed to be
undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the
presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. (Lopez vs. People, 715 SCRA 52 [2014])
It is settled that possession is necessarily included in the sale of dangerous or prohibited
drugs. (People vs. Dasigan, 750 SCRA 79 [2015])
——o0o——
