G.R. No. 202151 - Quijano vs. People

The accused-appellant, Allan Bugtong y Amoroso, was charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs as defined under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
The charge arose from an alleged transaction on January 10, 2009, in Roxas City, Philippines, where the accused purportedly sold a small sachet (0.03 gram) of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride (locally known as shabu) to a police officer acting as a poseur buyer.

The charge was initiated based on an Information dated January 21, 2009, alleging that the accused, with deliberate intent, willingly sold, distributed, and delivered the dangerous drug to SPO1 Ma. Nanette Puasan, described as a poseur buyer.
Surveillance details:

SPO1 Puasan conducted surveillance at the accused’s residence and observed him engaging in a transaction.
PO2 Rodel IbaAez also performed surveillance on the accused.

At approximately 10:30 a.m. on January 10, 2009, Chief of Police Leo Batiles organized a team composed of several officers including SPO1 Puasan, PO2 IbaAez, and others.
Around 5:30 p.m., the team executed the operation in front of Banica Elementary School where SPO1 Puasan, acting as the poseur buyer, engaged the accused by presenting herself as a buyer.
During the operation, SPO1 Puasan received one P100.00 bill and one P200.00 bill from the accused in exchange for a sachet of shabu.
PO2 IbaAez recovered the marked money and arrested the accused afterward.

After the arrest, SPO1 Puasan took custody of the seized item (the sachet) and is said to have placed her marking "AB" on it immediately following the transaction.
The item, along with its marked money, was brought to the police station and later delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory by SPO1 Puasan.
At the laboratory, the specimen was examined by P/Supt. Angela L. Baldevieso, who confirmed the presence of shabu and attached additional markings (including “D-011-09” for the control number and “0.03 gram” denoting its weight).

The accused admitted to being at the location on January 10, 2009, stating he was returning from fetching his son and that he had previously worked as a singer/entertainer.
The defense recounted that during his apprehension, PO3 Paulin, along with other officers, used physical force and abusive procedures during the search and subsequent detention.
The accused challenging the evidentiary chain argued that the seized item was not properly marked immediately upon confiscation, asserting the existence of a gap in the chain of custody.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs based on:

Positive identification by SPO1 Puasan.
Confirmation by P/Supt. Baldevieso that the examined specimen contained shabu.
Documentary evidence of the marked money and the initial seizure during the buy-bust operation.

There was no significant gap in the chain of custody.
The sequence of custody—from SPO1 Puasan through to the Crime Laboratory—was maintained, with documented markings and inventory procedures lending credence to the evidence’s integrity.

The Supreme Court found that both the RTC and the CA misapprehended relevant facts, particularly regarding the chain of custody.
It held that for illegal sale of dangerous drugs to be established, the prosecution must prove:

The identities of the buyer and the seller.
The object and the consideration of the sale.
The delivery of the sold item and its payment, with an unbroken chain of custody being essential to preserve evidentiary integrity.

The Court highlighted that under Section 21, RA 9165, it is imperative that the confiscated item be immediately marked in the presence of the accused to ensure its identification throughout the custody chain.
Evidence showed that SPO1 Puasan and P/Supt. Baldevieso both claimed to have placed the marking “AB” on the sachet, leading to a potential duplication issue. The absence of clear, distinct initial marking at the time of confiscation resulted in an identifiable breach in the chain of custody.
Moreover, the testimony of PO1 Cachila was deficient, as he failed to corroborate the turnaround of the seized item, further compounding the gap in the custodian link.

Whether the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized item (the sachet of suspected shabu) as required under Section 21 of RA 9165.

Was the initial marking of the confiscated item conducted immediately upon seizure in the presence of the accused?
Can the duplicative markings (“AB” by both SPO1 Puasan and P/Supt. Baldevieso) be reconciled to affirm the identity of the evidence?

Whether the failure to satisfy all procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165 compromised the evidentiary integrity of the seized item.

Was there a gap or break in the chain of custody that might have tainted the evidence?
Did the absence of proper physical inventory and photographic documentation by the buy-bust team affect the evidentiary value of the seized item?

Whether the trial court’s and CA’s findings on the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence sufficed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the potential lapses in evidentiary procedure.