In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Charlie Sorin y Tagaylo of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. This means that the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from Sorin. This decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to strict procedural requirements in handling drug evidence to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the judicial process. This case highlights how vital it is for law enforcement to follow every step meticulously, from seizure to presentation in court, ensuring that the evidence remains untainted and reliable. Because of this failure, the court reversed Sorin’s conviction, emphasizing the state’s duty to ensure justice through reliable, untainted evidence, preventing wrongful convictions.

From Buy-Bust to Broken Chains: Did Police Lapses Free a Suspected Drug Dealer?

The case began with an information filed against Charlie Sorin y Tagaylo for allegedly violating Sections 5 and 15 of Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution claimed that on November 2, 2005, Sorin sold two sachets of shabu to poseur-buyers during a buy-bust operation in El Salvador, Misamis Oriental. This operation was initiated following a report that Sorin was selling illegal drugs at his residence. A buy-bust team was formed, and marked money was prepared. During the operation, PO2 Edgardo Dador and PO1 Sonny Adams Cambangay allegedly purchased two sachets of shabu from Sorin, leading to his arrest. Subsequent laboratory tests confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride in the seized sachets and traces of ultraviolet fluorescent powder on Sorin’s hands and the marked money. However, Sorin denied the allegations, claiming that the police officers planted the shabu and that no buy-bust operation occurred.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Sorin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and ordering him to pay a fine of P500,000.00. The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers, stating that the prosecution was able to account for every link in the chain of custody of the seized items. However, the RTC declared the results of the laboratory examination of Sorin’s urine inadmissible as evidence, acquitting him of the charge of violating Section 15, Article II of RA 9165. Aggrieved, Sorin appealed his conviction before the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed Sorin’s conviction in toto. The CA agreed with the RTC’s finding that a valid buy-bust operation had occurred and that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were preserved, notwithstanding the police officers’ lapses in complying with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed the CA’s decision, focusing on the critical importance of establishing an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. The Court emphasized that in cases involving violations of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The Court stated that it is of paramount importance for the prosecution to establish that the transaction actually took place and to present the corpus delicti, i.e., the seized drugs, before the court. Furthermore, it must be shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of such seized items have been preserved. The chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, outlines the procedural mechanics for handling seized drugs. It requires that the apprehending team immediately conduct an inventory and take photographs of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were seized, their representative or counsel, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from confiscation for examination purposes. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 and jurisprudence provide that non-compliance with these requirements will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, provided that there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

In this case, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the substance allegedly confiscated from Sorin due to unjustified gaps in the chain of custody. PO2 Dador, the apprehending officer, failed to mark the sachets seized from Sorin during the buy-bust operation and instead turned them over unmarked to SPO1 Mugot, who conducted the marking, prepared the request for laboratory examination, delivered the request and seized sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory, and later received the examination results. PO2 Dador admitted that the sachets he seized from Sorin were not even marked in his presence.

The significance of marking in illegal drugs cases cannot be overemphasized. Marking serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. In People v. Sabdula, the Court acquitted the accused due to the failure to mark the plastic sachets confiscated during the buy-bust operation. In Sorin’s case, SPO1 Mugot admitted that he did not mark the plastic sachets containing the seized drugs but instead placed the marking on the “transparent plastic cellophane” wherein he placed the seized sachets. This act of marking only the cellophane and not the individual plastic sachets renders the corpus delicti highly susceptible to tampering, switching, planting, and contamination of the evidence.

With these lapses, the Court was unconvinced that the chain of custody rule had been substantially complied with. Not only did the apprehending officer who had initial custody over the seized drugs fail to mark them or even witness their alleged marking, but also the officer to whom the marking of the seized items was attributed disclaimed that he had done such marking and admitted that he only marked a transparent plastic cellophane container and not the individual sachets containing the seized drugs themselves. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. In criminal prosecutions involving illegal drugs, the presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime calls for the necessity of proving with moral certainty that they are the same seized items. The lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from the accused strongly militates against a finding of guilt. As reasonable doubt persisted on the identity of the drugs allegedly seized from the accused, the latter’s acquittal was warranted.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, ensuring that the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused.
Why was the accused acquitted?	The accused was acquitted because the apprehending officer failed to mark the seized drugs immediately, and the subsequent marking was done on the cellophane container instead of the sachets themselves, compromising the integrity of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires that every person who handled the evidence, from seizure to presentation in court, must testify on how they received, handled, and transferred the evidence to ensure its integrity.
What is the significance of marking the seized drugs?	Marking the seized drugs is crucial to distinguish them from other similar items and to prevent any possibility of tampering, switching, or contamination of the evidence throughout the legal proceedings.
What does RA 9165 say about handling seized drugs?	RA 9165 requires the apprehending team to immediately inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, and a DOJ representative, ensuring transparency and accountability.
Can non-compliance with RA 9165 invalidate the seizure?	Non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure if there is a justifiable reason and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, but this was not the case here.
Who is responsible for maintaining the chain of custody?	All individuals who handle the evidence, including the apprehending officers, evidence custodians, and forensic analysts, are responsible for maintaining the chain of custody.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are compromised, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in RA 9165 to ensure the integrity of drug evidence. The failure to properly mark and document the seized drugs created reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused. This decision underscores the necessity for law enforcement officers to meticulously follow the chain of custody rule to safeguard the rights of the accused and uphold the principles of justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CHARLIE SORIN Y TAGAYLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 212635, March 25, 2015