PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

ROSALINDA CASABUENA
G.R. No. 186455, November 19, 2014,

Facts:

The prosecution charged the Casabuena with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article
II of R.A. No. 9165. That Casabuena, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell
in a buy bust operation to Armando Joaquin acting as the poseur-buyer 0.0139 gram of shabu, a
dangerous drug, contained in one plastic sachet, without any license or authority to sell the same.
Acting on this information, the city’s chief of police formed an entrapment team. The team
conducted a ‘briefing’, assigned Armando as the poseur-buyer, and then went to the target area.
When the team arrived there, they positioned themselves 15 meters from the Casabuena’s
compound. Armando followed them after receiving a call from SPO1 Balolong. Armando
entered the Casabuena’s house when he arrived; he went out after two (2) minutes and made the
pre-arranged signal to the other members of the buy-bust team.. SPO1Balolong informed the
Casabuena of her constitutional rights, and then ordered PO1 Mangapit to arrest her. The police
then brought the Casabuena and the seized items to the Laoag City Police Station. When they
arrived there, SPO1 Balolong submitted the seized items to SPO2 Loreto Ancheta, the evidence
custodian who, in turn, marked these items. On cross examination, SPO1 Balolong stated that
Armando was just a “walk-in” informant. SPO1 Balolong also admitted that he did not witness
the transaction between Armando and the Casabuena since he was outside the latter’s house.
P/Sr. Insp. Cayabyab, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory in Laoag
City, stated that, Merlita Pasion, the laboratory’s receiving clerk, handed to her a letter-request
and a small plastic sachet containing alleged shabu. She put her initials on the sachet, made an
initial preliminary examination on the submitted specimen, and found it positive for the presence
of 0.0139 gram of shabu. She conducted a confirmatory test on the specimen, and this test
yielded the same result. The results of these two tests were reflected in the Initial Laboratory
Report and in Chemistry Report. With regard to the marked money, SPO2 Ancheta claimed that
he noted their respective serial numbers, and then placed them in a steel cabinet. He maintained
that the item presented to him was the same item given to him by SPO1 Balolong because it bore
the markings he made. The RTC found the Casabuena guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Page 143 of 519.

Issue:

Whether or not the chain of custody over the seized drug was broken and that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the object evidence had not been preserved

Ruling:

Yes, the chain of custody was broken.

In a prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No.
9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug,
evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug
actually recovered from Casabuena; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for drug
pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails. The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is
embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Strict compliance with the
prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it
indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either
by accident or otherwise.

In this case, the outlined procedure, however, was not shown to have been complied with
by the members of the buy-bust team, and nothing on record suggests that they had extended
reasonable efforts to comply with the said statutory requirement in handling the seized evidence.
The testimonies of SPO1 Balolong, SPO2 Ancheta, and Armando all showed that the police did
not inventory or photograph the seized shabu either at the place where it was seized or at the
police station. No photographs or certificate of inventory of the confiscated items appear in the
records. Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR offers some flexibility in complying with the express
requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, non-compliance with
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. These conditions were not met in the
present case, as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification why it failed to
inventory and to photograph the seized items. The Court cannot simply presume what these
justifications are. Contrary to the CA’s ruling, the so-called “field test of the drugs recovered”
and its turn over to the crime laboratory together with the marked money are not the procedures
mandated by Section 21 and its IRR. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance
itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment
of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that
unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti. The chain of custody rule
performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed. The rule seeks to settle definitively whether the object evidence subjected
to laboratory examination and presented in court is the same object Page 144 of 519.