PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO SARIO Y SERRANO AND MACARIO PEREZ, JR. Y MERCADO, ACCUSED;

People versus Sario and Perez

The Case

This is an ordinary appeal assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Antonio Sario for illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case matters because it tests the prosecution's duty to prove an unbroken chain of custody over seized drugs, and it demonstrates that even where the trial and appellate courts find the police operation credible, a conviction cannot stand if the identity of the corpus delicti is not established with moral certainty.

Procedural History

Sario and his co-accused Macario Perez were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Laguna under three separate Informations. Sario was charged with illegal sale of 0.07 gram of shabu and illegal possession of 11.47 grams of shabu, while Perez was separately charged with illegal possession. The cases were consolidated for trial. During the trial stage, Perez entered into a plea-bargaining agreement and pleaded guilty to two counts of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, which the trial court approved.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision finding Sario guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu, sentencing him to life imprisonment and fines in both cases. Sario appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied his appeal and affirmed the trial court's Decision. Hence, Sario appealed to the Supreme Court, reiterating the same issues he raised before the appellate court.

Facts

On the evening of July 21, 2017, a confidential informant reported to the Los Baños Municipal Police Station that a certain Antonio and his cohort were engaged in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. A buy-bust team was formed with Police Officer I Eryl Estrada as the poseur buyer and Police Officer III Mark Ivan Are as team leader. A five hundred peso bill was marked to serve as buy-bust money, and the pre-arranged signal was the removal of the poseur buyer's helmet.

At around 12:30 in the morning of July 22, 2017, the poseur buyer and the informant approached Sario and Perez. Perez asked how much shabu the poseur buyer would purchase, and upon receiving the marked money, handed it to Sario, who took a plastic sachet from his pocket and gave it to Perez, who then gave it to the poseur buyer. After the pre-arranged signal, the team arrested both men. Sario produced two more plastic sachets from his pockets, and Perez produced one. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the scene in the presence of a media representative and a barangay kagawad. The items were then brought to the Regional Crime Laboratory where they were received by Police Officer III Villela, and examined by forensic chemist Police Chief Inspector Donna Villa Huelgas, who found them positive for shabu.

Sario's defense was frame-up. He testified that armed men identifying themselves as police officers arrived at his friend's house, searched it without a warrant, and later brought out a small plastic sachet containing shabu and a marked peso bill, took pictures, and brought him to the police station.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved an unbroken chain of custody over the seized shabu, particularly the third and fourth links of the custodial chain.
• Whether or not the alleged irregularities in the marking and inventory of the seized items warrant the acquittal of the accused-appellant.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, provides:

The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos to Ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

This provision defines the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, for which Sario was convicted.

Section 11 of Republic Act Number 9165 provides:

The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos to Ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof: (a) 10 grams or more of opium; (b) 10 grams or more of morphine; (c) 50 grams or more of marijuana; (d) 10 grams or more of shabu; (e) 10 grams or more of cocaine; or (f) 10 grams or more of heroin.

This provision defines the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, for which Sario was also convicted.

Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Sario. The Court held that the issues raised by the accused-appellant, except for those relating to the non-presentation of Police Officer III Villela and the inadequacy of the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist, had no merit and were adequately addressed by the Court of Appeals. The markings on the seized items, the absence of the accused's signature on the inventory receipt, and the presence of witnesses during inventory were all properly considered by the appellate court.

However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the third and fourth links of the chain of custody over the seized shabu. On the third link, the prosecution failed to present Police Officer III Villela as a witness to testify on the circumstances of his receipt of the seized drugs from the poseur buyer. The Court quoted its ruling in a prior case:

Anent the third link, PO1 Villarino testified that he and PO2 Elauria personally delivered the drug specimens to the crime laboratory, together with the Requests for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test. While it appears that the requests were stamp received by PO2 Comia, the latter was not presented in court to shed light on the condition of the contraband when it was received, as well as the necessary precautions employed to ensure that the seized illegal drugs were not contaminated, changed, or altered while in PO2 Comia's custody. This is in clear disregard of the mandate that every link in the chain must be clearly established, describing how and from whom the seized evidence was received, its condition when delivered to the next link in the chain and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity.

On the fourth link, the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist lacked details on how the seized shabu was handled after her examination and before its submission to the trial court. The Court quoted its ruling in another case:

The Court does not see from the records the details on how the specimen was handled from the time it was submitted for laboratory examination up to time it was formally offered to the court. Forensic Chemist PSI Huelgas did not testify on how she handled the seized item during examination and before it was transferred to the court — which testimony is required to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the seized drug and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession while in her custody.

The Court held that the silence of the records on these crucial details compromised the integrity of the corpus delicti, and the drugs presented in evidence could not be considered reliable enough to stand as proof of the drug charges.

Doctrine

In all criminal cases involving violations of Republic Act Number 9165, the State must establish beyond reasonable doubt not only the elements of the charged offense, but also the identity and existence of the dangerous drugs involved, because the drugs themselves serve as the corpus delicti of the crime. The chain of custody rule requires testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, so that every person who touched the exhibit describes how and from whom it was received, where it was, and what happened to it while in that person's possession.

The four essential links in the chain of custody are: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court. A failure to establish any of these links, such as the non-presentation of the receiving officer at the crime laboratory or the absence of testimony on the handling of the drugs after examination, results in a fatal break in the custodial chain and warrants acquittal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, acquitted Antonio Sario of both illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu, and ordered his immediate release from detention unless he was being held for some other lawful cause.

Remember This

Memorize the four links of the chain of custody and remember that every person who handled the seized drugs must testify, including the receiving officer at the crime laboratory and the forensic chemist on post-examination handling. Examiners love to use this case to test whether you know that stipulations on the forensic chemist's findings do not cure the failure to prove how the drugs were preserved before submission to the court.