Title
People vs. Cacho y Gabriel
Case
G.R. No. 254259
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2022
Appellant acquitted due to broken chain of custody; procedural lapses in drug seizure inventory compromised evidence integrity, creating reasonable doubt.
unbroken chain of custody
identity of seized drugs
beyond reasonable doubt

Case Summary (G.R. No. 254259)

Criminal Charges and Accusatory Allegations

In an Amended Information before the RTC, appellant and his co-accused Salim Lala Pimba (Pimba) were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The amended accusatory portion alleged that, on or about June 20, 2014, appellant—conspiring and confederating with Pimba—sold and delivered to PO3 Deogracias Basang, acting as a poseur-buyer, a heat-sealed small transparent plastic sachet containing 0.20 gram of white crystalline substance that tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Separately, appellant was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The information alleged that on the same date and in the same place, appellant had in his possession, direct custody, and control thirteen (13) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride without legal authority.

Arrest, Buy-Bust Operation, and Immediate Handling of Evidence

Upon arraignment on August 7, 2014, appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s version began with a confidential informant reporting that appellant was engaged in illegal drug activities. A buy-bust team was formed, with P/Insp. Jerry Flores as team leader and SPO1 Basang as the poseur-buyer. The plan involved marked P500.00 bills and a pre-arranged signal of lighting a cigarette upon consummation.

At about 10:30 in the evening on June 20, 2014, the buy-bust team and informant proceeded to the target area. While the rest of the team hid, SPO1 Basang and the informant entered an alley and saw two men. The informant introduced SPO1 Basang to appellant. The informant testified that Pimba introduced himself as “Salim.” SPO1 Basang stated he wanted to purchase for P1,000.00, and Pimba told appellant, “Mac, ikaw na ang magbigay,” while handing appellant a red body bag. SPO1 Basang gave the two marked P500.00 bills to appellant. Appellant then brought out a brown-striped pouch, took out a small plastic sachet, and handed it to SPO1 Basang, stating it was worth one thousand pesos. When SPO1 Basang lit a cigarette, the buy-bust team rushed in. SPO1 Basang arrested appellant by grabbing his right arm. Pimba managed to escape. The prosecution alleged that among the items confiscated from appellant were the red body bag, the brown-striped pouch, and the buy-bust money and that additional cash in appellant’s possession brought the total to P1,990.00. It was likewise testified that thirteen (13) more small plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were found in appellant’s possession. The prosecution also stated that SPO1 Basang marked the buy-bust sachet with “MB-BUYBUST 6/20/14” in appellant’s presence.

After the arrest, P/Insp. Flores decided to continue inventory and marking at the Barangay Hall of Tumana because it was dark where appellant was arrested and because appellant’s relatives were causing commotion. City Councilor Ronnie Acuna (Acuna) and Cesar Barquilla (Barquilla) of Remate tabloid were reportedly present during the inventory, marking, and photograph-taking at the barangay hall. The thirteen sachets were marked from “MB-1 6/20/14” to “MB-13 6/20/14.” Acuna and Barquilla signed the inventory of evidence; appellant refused to sign. A Chain of Custody Form was prepared by SPO1 Basang, and the evidence was later turned over to PCI Libres for forensic examination. PCI Libres’ report dated June 21, 2014 allegedly confirmed that the buy-bust sachet weighing 0.20 gram tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, and that the thirteen sachets with total weight of 34.12 grams also tested positive.

Defense Version

Appellant testified as the sole defense witness. He stated that around ten or eleven o’clock in the evening of June 20, 2014, he was sitting alone near the end of the bridge in Barangay Tumana. He claimed two police officers approached him and verified his identity. He was allegedly ordered to board a vehicle and taken to a vacant lot where drug paraphernalia were shown. He further claimed he was brought to the barangay hall and to the police station, and the police officers allegedly told him he would be imprisoned despite not having committed an offense. On cross-examination, appellant denied being with Pimba at the time of his arrest and denied that items were recovered from him.

RTC’s Findings and Sentencing

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charged offenses. In the illegal sale case (Criminal Case No. 2014-4356-D-MK), it imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered payment of a fine of P500,000.00. In the illegal possession case (Criminal Case No. 2014-4357-D-MK), it imposed imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and a fine of P300,000.00.

The RTC held that there was satisfactory compliance with the chain of custody requirements. It acknowledged that the confiscated drugs were not inventoried, marked, and photographed at the place of arrest but concluded that there was a valid justification because the place was not well-lit and appellant’s relatives were causing commotion. The RTC also ruled that marking at the barangay hall did not affect the evidentiary value of the seized items. It found appellant’s denial unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

Appellate Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA affirmed the RTC decision. It held that the prosecution established all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession. It accorded full weight to SPO1 Basang’s positive identification and narration of the buy-bust operation, particularly because the account was supported by the physical evidence and PCI Libres’ forensic report.

On chain of custody, the CA held that there was no break despite the absence of a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) during inventory, marking, and photograph-taking. It relied on the reasoning in People v. Agulay that such absence did not affect the preservation of integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs in the circumstances discussed in that line of cases. The CA, however, noted an error in the prosecution’s information for illegal possession because it failed to indicate the quantity of confiscated drugs, and it stated that this required the imposition of the minimum penalty for possession of shabu, which it found essentially the same as what the RTC had imposed. The appellant therefore brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Core Issue on Appeal

The Supreme Court framed the determinative issue as whether the guilt of appellant for the crimes charged had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Parties’ Positions Before the Supreme Court

Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. He reiterated that the element of consideration was lacking because the marked P500.00 bills were not marked or subjected to ultraviolet powder-dusting. He also claimed that the lack of signature on the sachets supposedly confiscated from him raised reasonable doubt as to source and handling. He further argued that chain of custody was not complied with because of the absence of a DOJ representative during inventory and marking. He also questioned the proof that Acuna was an incumbent councilor and that Barquilla was a media representative, and he contended that chain of custody was broken because the prosecution failed to identify the investigator who prepared laboratory examination requests and requests for drug testing.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) urged affirmance. It countered that the lack of marking and dusting of the P500.00 bills, and the alleged lack of signatures on the sachets, did not defeat the case because SPO1 Basang testified categorically that the bills were used as buy-bust money and that the sachets presented in court were the same seized from appellant. The OSG insisted that the chain of custody rule was complied with, though not strictly and perfectly as required. It also maintained that conducting the inventory, marking, and photograph-taking at the barangay hall was justified due to poor lighting and commotion caused by appellant’s relatives.

Legal Framework on Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Corpus Delicti

The Court underscored that in criminal prosecutions the accused is presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution bears the burden of establishing all elements of the charged crimes.

For illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the Court reiterated the essential elements: the identity of buyer and seller, the object and the consideration; and the delivery of the thing sold and payment. It emphasized that a transaction or sale must be proven to have actually taken place, coupled with presentation in court of the corpus delicti.

For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the Court recited the elements: possession of an item identified to be a prohibited drug; possession without legal authorization; and that the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The Court stressed that the prosecution must establish with moral certainty the identity of the confiscated drug and show that the substance illegally possessed or sold by the accused is the same substance offered and identified in court. This requirement is secured through the chain of custody rule created by R.A. No. 9165 to safeguard against doubts on the identity of seized drugs.

Chain of Custody Under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and Its IRR

The Court explained that chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each stage, from seizure and confiscation through receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until presentation in court.

The Court then discussed Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, focusing on the requirement that, immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team must physically inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms