PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

ZAIDA KAMAD Y AMBING

[G.R. NO. 174198 January 19, 2010

Brion, J.

FACTS:

1. The PNP drug enforcement unit of the Taguig police received information from an asset
that a certain Zaida was engaged in the illegal sale of shabu. The Taguig police formed a
buy-bust team.
2. SPO2 Sanchez acted as the poseur-buyer. The asset introduced SPO2 Sanchez to Zaida
and SPO2 Sanchez asked for P300 worth of shabu and gave the marked-money.
3. Zaida handed him a plastic sachet containing the shabu. SPO2 Sanchez lighted a cigarette
to give the pre-arranged signal for the buy-bust team to approach. SPO2 Sanchez arrested
Zaida and recovered from her the P300 marked money.
4. The RTC found Zaida guilty and the CA affirmed the RTC ruling, hence this petition.
5. Zaida pointed out the material inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses that cast doubt on their credibility, namely: (a) the uncertainty of SPO2
Sanchez regarding the time the buy-bust team was dispatched to the target area; (b) the
confusion of PO3 Maulit on the identity of the buy-bust team leader; (c) the admitted
mistake of PO3 Maulit that only the recovered plastic sachet was marked ES, while the
marked money marked MF; (d) the contradictory statements of PO3 Maulit who testified
that it was Leo, Zaida’s boyfriend who sold him the shabu.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the failure of the police to comply with the chain of custody rule in habdling the
seized shabu would warrant the acquittal of Zaida Kamad.

RULING: REVERSE AND SET ASIDE

RATIO DECIDENDI:

To establish the chain of custody, the prosecution must show the movements of the dangerous
drugs from its confiscation up to its presentation in court. The purpose of establishing the chain
of custody is to ensure the integrity of the corpus delicti.
The following links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are:
(1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the
obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance
of duties cannot be made in this case.

The discrepancy in the prosecution evidence on the identity of the seized and examined shabu
and that formally offered in court cannot but lead to serious doubts regarding the origins of the
shabu presented in court. This discrepancy and the gap in the chain of custody immediately
affect proof of the corpus delicti without which the accused must be acquitted.