The Supreme Court acquitted Ma. Del Pilar Rosario C. Casa due to the prosecution’s failure to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in charges of illegal drug sale and possession. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crimes and did not properly comply with the chain of custody rule, particularly regarding the handling and preservation of evidence by the forensic chemist. This ruling highlights the importance of strictly adhering to procedural safeguards to protect the constitutional right to be presumed innocent, ensuring that convictions are based on solid, untainted evidence.

Did Police Missteps Taint Drug Evidence? Supreme Court Weighs Chain of Custody

The case of People of the Philippines v. Ma. Del Pilar Rosario C. Casa (G.R. No. 254208, August 16, 2022) centered on whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Ma. Del Pilar Rosario C. Casa was guilty of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. This required a thorough examination of the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony of witnesses and the adherence to the chain of custody rule outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sees. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, in two separate amended informations. The prosecution presented testimonies from several witnesses, including police officers involved in the buy-bust operation, while the defense presented accused-appellant’s denial of the charges and claims of being framed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted accused-appellant, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

The Supreme Court began its analysis by reiterating the essential elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. To secure a conviction for illegal sale, the prosecution must prove: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession, the prosecution must establish that: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.

The Court emphasized the importance of establishing the identity of the seized drugs with moral certainty, requiring proof that the substance bought or recovered during the operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule under R.A. No. 9165, created to safeguard against doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs. In evaluating the evidence, the Court noted the lack of corroboration for the poseur-buyer’s testimony. The Court cited People v. Ordiz, reiterating that courts should be cautious in receiving and weighing the probative value of the testimony of an alleged poseur-buyer, especially when it is not corroborated by any of his teammates in the alleged buy-bust operation. According to PO1 Delbo, accused-appellant approached them and asked if they wanted to buy shabu and how much they were going to buy. PO1 Delbo replied that they wanted to buy “kinye” meaning P500.00 worth of shabu. The Court found the prosecution’s case regarding the alleged transaction relied mostly on the uncorroborated testimony of the supposed poseur-buyer.

The circumstances surrounding the alleged possession were also doubtful and unclear. PO1 Delbo claimed that accused-appellant was still holding the purported plastic container, from which the plastic sachet came from. According to PO1 Delbo, accused-appellant “picked a plastic container at the left front pocket,” and then “picked one (1) [sachet] and gave it to [him.]” PO1 Delbo examined the plastic sachet and upon confirmation that what he received was shabu, he immediately placed a call to SPO4 Germodo. Upon seeing the backup team running towards them, he immediately announced in Visayan dialect his authority, and arrested accused-appellant and informed her of her constitutional rights. It was quite incredible that accused-appellant was holding a plastic container, supposedly containing dangerous drugs, in the open and in plain view of PO1 Delbo for an extended period of time. It is highly suspicious that PO1 Delbo was already aware that the plastic container contained shabu despite the fact that he had not yet seen the contents of the container since he was still busy marking the purported drugs he bought from accused-appellant.

The Court emphasized that chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each stage, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until its presentation in court. The inventory and taking of photographs were conducted at the police station, with the Joint Affidavit of PO1 Delbo and PO1 Olasiman stating that the team leader decided to conduct the inventory at the police station “for security purposes.” Such general invocation of “security purposes,” without any explanation or detail, is not sufficient to justify that it was actually not practicable to conduct the inventory at the place of seizure, which would necessitate a change of venue to the nearest police station. Further, the Court determined that even the second requisite of the saving clause was not proven by the prosecution because the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized were not preserved; particularly, there were breaks in the first and fourth links in the chain of custody. It was not compliant with paragraph 2.35, Sec. 2-6 of the 2014 Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation, as well as the utter lack of details on the condition and handling of the seized drugs from the period after its examination until the same were brought to the trial court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. Likewise, the second requisite of the saving clause was not proven by the prosecution because the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized were not preserved; particularly, there were breaks in the first and fourth links in the chain of custody.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, and whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly maintained according to R.A. No. 9165, as amended.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the documented and authorized movements and custody of seized drugs at each stage, from confiscation to presentation in court, ensuring the integrity and identity of the evidence.
What are the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs?	The elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.
What are the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs?	The elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
What did the Court find regarding the poseur-buyer’s testimony?	The Court found the poseur-buyer’s testimony to be uncorroborated and, therefore, insufficient to prove the illegal sale beyond a reasonable doubt. The elements of the transaction hinged solely on the testimony of the poseur-buyer because all the other witnesses presented by the prosecution admitted not seeing the transaction
What is the “saving clause” in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?	The “saving clause” states that noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements will not invalidate the seizure and custody of items if there are justifiable grounds for the noncompliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
Why was the chain of custody rule not properly followed in this case?	The inventory was not conducted at the place of seizure, the inventory report did not state that the inventory was conducted in the presence of the accused, and there were breaks in the first and fourth links of the chain.
What did the court say about the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty?	The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity cannot trump the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; unjustified procedural lapses by arresting officers undermine a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why was the forensic chemist’s testimony considered insufficient?	The stipulation in the testimony are bereft of information regarding the condition of the seized items while in PCI Llena’s custody and the precautions she undertook to preserve their integrity. The absence of the testimony failed to identify the person who personally brought the seized shabu to the crime laboratory.

The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the necessity of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule and the importance of credible evidence in drug-related cases. This case serves as a reminder to law enforcement of their duty to uphold the constitutional rights of the accused and to diligently follow the established procedures in handling drug evidence. This ruling has implications for future drug cases, potentially leading to increased scrutiny of law enforcement procedures and greater emphasis on the preservation of evidence.

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 v. Casa, G.R. No. 254208, August 16, 2022