In People of the Philippines v. Ariel Calvelo y Consada, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ariel Calvelo for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Court emphasized the importance of establishing an unbroken chain of custody of seized drugs to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items. This ruling reinforces the strict adherence to procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, to prevent any doubts regarding the identity and handling of drug evidence.

Buy-Bust Integrity: Can a Poseur-Buyer’s Testimony Alone Convict?

Ariel Calvelo was apprehended during a buy-bust operation for allegedly selling three sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The prosecution presented PO2 Marites T. Villanueva, the poseur-buyer, and SPO2 Gerry Abalos as witnesses. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the confiscated drugs, challenging the validity of the buy-bust operation. Central to the defense’s argument was the claim that Villanueva’s testimony was insufficient, as she was merely a bystander and not the actual poseur-buyer. The defense also questioned the absence of the confidential informant as a witness.

The Supreme Court, however, found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to prove Calvelo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the three critical elements for a conviction under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165: the identification of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery of the item sold with corresponding payment. In this case, the Court noted that Villanueva positively identified Calvelo as the seller. Her direct interaction with Calvelo, from negotiating the drug sale to receiving the shabu, established her role as the poseur-buyer, effectively countering the defense’s claim that she was a mere bystander.

Building on this principle, the Court distinguished this case from People v. Rojo, where the informant acted as the poseur-buyer, and the prosecution failed to present the informant’s testimony. In Calvelo’s case, Villanueva’s direct involvement and testimony provided first-hand knowledge of the transaction, making the informant’s testimony merely corroborative and not indispensable. The Court then reiterated the “objective test” in evaluating buy-bust operations.

We therefore stress that the “objective” test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start 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 the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the “buy-bust” money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.

This test ensures that the details of the transaction are clear, from the initial contact to the delivery of the drugs and payment. Applying this test, the Court found that the prosecution sufficiently established the details of the transaction between Villanueva and Calvelo.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The **chain of custody** refers to the “duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs…from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.” This ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must account for each link in the chain, from seizure and marking to turnover to the investigating officer, forensic chemist, and finally, the court. This unbroken chain safeguards against alteration, tampering, or contamination of the evidence.

The Court meticulously examined each stage of the chain of custody in Calvelo’s case. Villanueva marked the seized sachets immediately after the arrest, in Calvelo’s presence. This marking is crucial, as it sets apart the evidence from other materials and prevents switching or contamination. A certificate of inventory, signed by team leader Ablang, an elected public official, and a media representative, further documented the seized items. Villanueva and Abalos then personally submitted the marked sachets to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory. A report from the laboratory confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride in the specimens. The defense admitted that the forensic chemist’s testimony would only confirm the report and the seized drugs.

Having found an unbroken chain of custody, the Court referred to prior jurisprudence, which clarified that strict adherence to procedural requirements is not always mandatory. Instead, the primary concern is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Even if there were minor deviations from the prescribed procedures, the evidence remains admissible if its integrity is maintained.

We are not always looking for the strict step-by-step adherence to the procedural requirements; what is important is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The Court also addressed Calvelo’s argument against the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The Court reiterated that law enforcement officers are presumed to have acted regularly unless there is evidence to the contrary. This presumption is based on the principles of innocence, adherence to the official oath, and the need for trust in government agents. Calvelo failed to provide any evidence of irregularity or ill motive on the part of the police officers, thus upholding the presumption of regularity.

The Court found Calvelo’s defense of denial unconvincing, noting that such defenses are common in drug cases and easily fabricated. In contrast, the prosecution presented a strong case, establishing Calvelo’s guilt in flagrante delicto, or in the act of committing the crime, during a legitimate buy-bust operation.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs by establishing the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and the integrity of the seized drugs through an unbroken chain of custody.
What is a “buy-bust” operation?	A buy-bust operation is a method used by law enforcement to apprehend individuals engaged in illegal drug activities. It typically involves a poseur-buyer who pretends to purchase drugs from a suspect, leading to the suspect’s arrest.
What is a poseur-buyer?	A poseur-buyer is an individual, often a law enforcement officer or informant, who pretends to be a buyer of illegal drugs in a buy-bust operation. Their role is to make contact with the seller, negotiate the purchase, and facilitate the arrest.
What does “chain of custody” mean in drug cases?	Chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of individuals who handle evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. This ensures the integrity and authenticity of the evidence by tracking its movement and custody.
Why is the chain of custody important?	The chain of custody is crucial in drug cases because it ensures that the evidence presented in court is the same substance that was seized from the accused. Any break in the chain can raise doubts about the integrity of the evidence and potentially lead to acquittal.
What is the presumption of regularity?	The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes law enforcement officers perform their duties in accordance with established procedures and laws. This presumption can be overturned if there is evidence of misconduct or failure to follow proper procedures.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, the admissibility of the drug evidence may be challenged in court. The defense can argue that the evidence is unreliable due to potential tampering, contamination, or alteration, which could weaken the prosecution’s case.
What is required to prove the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs?	To prove the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold with payment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Calvelo underscores the critical importance of meticulous adherence to procedures in drug-related cases. Establishing an unbroken chain of custody and ensuring the integrity of evidence are paramount to securing convictions and upholding justice. This ruling emphasizes the need for law enforcement to diligently follow protocols in handling seized drugs, reinforcing the reliability of evidence presented in court.

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, v. ARIEL CALVELO Y CONSADA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 223526, December 06, 2017