PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

RICARDO GUANZON
G.R. No. 233653, September 5, 2018
RA 9165 - Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs; Chain of Custody; Inconsistent
Statements

Facts:

Guanzon, herein accused, was charged with Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous
Drugs. The prosecution alleged that the PNP received information from a concerned
citizen that the accused was selling drugs at Brgy. Mambugan, Antipolo City. The
PNP immediately coordinated with the PDEA to plan a buy-bust operation to
apprehend Guanzon. The sale of dangerous drugs between the accused and the
PNP’s poseur-buyer was then consummated. Thereafter, the team arrested the
accused. When the accused was frisked, the team recovered from him the marked
money and another plastic sachet of white crystalline substance. PO2 Hernandez
marked the sachet bought from the accused as “A” and the sachet recovered as “B”.
PO2 Hernandez then delivered the same to the crime laboratory for examination in
which it yielded positive results for shabu.

Meanwhile, the accused defenses involved denial and planting of evidence. The RTC
convicted the accused. The accused appealed to the CA. In his brief, the accused
raised issues as to the compliance of the police officers involved in the operation to
the mandatory procedures provided by the chain of custody rule in Section 21 of RA
9165. Particularly, that no inventory and photographs were submitted and offered to
the court, nothing was shown that there were attempts to contact a DOJ/media
representative or any elected official for the operation.

The CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling. Hence, the present appeal.

Issue: WON the RTC/CA erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime charged despite the non-compliance with the mandatory requirements
laid down in RA 9165.

Ruling: YES, the RTC/CA erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged.

At the outset, we stress that the fact of non-compliance with the mandatory
procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A. No. 10640 is not
disputed in this case. The issue lies on whether the identity and integrity of the
seized drugs were established beyond reasonable doubt despite the said non-
compliance. As such, it is imperative upon this Court to examine the evidence
establishing each link in the chain of custody from the buy-bust operation until the
presentation of the seized drugs to the court.

After a careful evaluation of the entire records of the case, we find that the evidence
presented by the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the
seized drugs. Consequently, the integrity and identity of the seized drugs were not
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

(SC pointed out the inconsistent statements given by the different versions of the
prosecution’s witnesses with regards to the handling of the evidence and compliance
with the chain of custody rule)

To be clear, we do not depart from the rule that minor discrepancies in the
testimonies of the witnesses neither vitiate the essential integrity of the evidence in
its material entirety, nor reflect adversely on the credibility of the witnesses. Basic is
the rule that inconsistency in the testimonies that has nothing to do with the
elements of the offense is not a ground to reverse a conviction.

In the case at bar, however, the inconsistencies in the testimonies do not pertain to
peripheral matters as observed by the CA. Verily, the said inconsistencies shed light
on the crux of the present controversy - the alleged failure to establish chain of
custody and preserve the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.
Given the foregoing observations, the testimonial evidence adduced by the
prosecution, on its own, clearly failed to establish the chain of custody of both drug
specimens. Although the seized drugs were marked, circumstances surrounding the
marking, such as the author, the time, and the place of marking, were not clearly
established. Guanzon was also not present during the said marking.

As previously discussed, there is already an unmistakable gap in the chain of custody

from the place of arrest to the police station. The Sinumpaang Salaysay of PO3
Paulos and SPO2 Abalos also made no mention of any details regarding the identity
of each individual in the chain of custody, and the manner of handling the seized
drugs.

In the case of People of the Philippines v. Gener Villar y Poja,1 the Court held that
generally, in a buy-bust situation,

The following links must be established in the chain of custody: (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.

Notably, SPO2 Abalos in his testimony, did not mention any other person present
during the marking of the specimens other than himself and PO2 Hernandez, who
allegedly marked the same. Nowhere in the records show where the said marking
took place. In fact, PO2 Hernandez did not testify during trial, nor indicate in his
affidavit, that he is the one who marked the seized drugs. On the other hand, PSI
Timario testified during her direct and cross examination, that the specimens were
marked by the "arresting officers" as they were already pre-marked when submitted
to her.

The importance of the marking of seized drugs, as the first link in the chain of
custody, is elucidated in the case of People of the Philippines v. Alberto Gonzales y
Santos2, thus:

The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or
related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items
by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other
identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator
immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied,
because succeeding handlers of dangerous drugs or related items will use the
marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the
dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are
confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings,
thereby forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the
marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs
or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and
evidentiary value. (Emphasis ours)

In recent jurisprudence, marking upon immediate confiscation has been interpreted

to include marking at the nearest police station, or the office of the apprehending
team.[38] Nonetheless, in this case, even the place of marking was not clearly
established by the prosecution.

As previously noted, SPO2 Abalos merely testified that he was beside PO2 Hernandez
during the marking and before submitting the marked specimens for examination.
Taking this into consideration, as well as the absence of the accused during the
marking, and the lack of a categorical statement by PO2 Hernandez that he is the
author of the marking, We find that the first link in the chain of custody is broken.

1
799 Phil 378 (2016)
2
708 Phil 121 (2013)
With regard to the second link, the contradicting testimonies of PO3 Paulos and SPO2
Abalos on the identity of the officer who had custody of the seized drugs from the
place of arrest to the police station already cast serious doubts on whether the drugs
brought to the police station is the same drugs seized from Guanzon at the place of
arrest.

Moreover, in People of the Philippines v. Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez 3, this Court

found that the inherent weakness of the first link in the chain of custody caused the
subsequent links to fail. Thus, it held:

The first link in the chain of custody was undoubtedly inherently weak which caused
the other links to miserably fail. The first link, it is emphasized, primarily deals on
the preservation of the identity and integrity of the confiscated items, the burden of
which lies with the prosecution. The marking has a twin purpose, viz: first, to give
the succeeding handlers of the specimen a reference, and second, to separate the
marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the
moment of seizure until their disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, thereby
obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. Absent therefore the
certainty that the items that were marked, subjected to laboratory
examination, and presented as evidence in court were exactly those that
were allegedly seized from Arposeple, there would be no need to proceed to
evaluate the succeeding links or to determine the existence of the other
elements of the charges against the appellants. Clearly, the cases for the
prosecution had been irreversibly lost as a result of the weak first link
irretrievably breaking away from the main chain. (Emphasis Ours)

Since the prosecution miserably failed to establish the first two links in this case,
there is no more need to discuss the subsequent links. The totality of the evidence
presented failed to prove the circumstances surrounding the marking of the seized
drugs and the identity of the individual handling the same from the place of arrest,
up to the police station.

The broken links in the chain of custody, taken together with the absence or non-
submission of inventory and photographs to the court, show an utter lack of effort on
the part of the police officers to comply with the mandatory procedures under the
law. We cannot turn a blind eye on such blatant violations of Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165, a substantive law. Section 21 of the same, as amended by R.A. No. 10640,
serves as a procedural safeguard against abuse of police authorities in the conduct of
their office through frame-up, and other similar operations related to drug cases.

3
G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017