Title
People vs. Wisco y Failano
Case
G.R. No. 237977
Decision Date
Aug 19, 2019
Wisco acquitted as prosecution failed to maintain unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs, creating reasonable doubt in illegal drug sale case.
unbroken chain of custody
prosecution failure
appeal

Case Summary (G.R. No. 237977)

Factual Background

On November 2, 2013, the prosecution alleged that, at around 10:00 P.M., a confidential informant reported to the PNP Pasuquin Municipal Police Station the rampant selling of shabu by Wisco in Barangay 4, Poblacion, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte. SPO1 Caldito verified the report by text message. A briefing was then held for a buy-bust operation, with PO1 Rosal designated as the poseur-buyer. A one thousand peso bill was marked with “AR” to serve as the buy-bust money. The agreed pre-arranged signal was the removal of the cap by PO1 Rosal to signify the consummation of the transaction. SPO1 Caldito and PO3 Bulosan served as back-up.

The buy-bust team proceeded to the target area along the barangay road in front of Guanzon Building. PO1 Rosal and the informant went ahead. Wisco was already waiting and asked what they needed. The informant replied that they would buy. PO1 Rosal handed the marked money. Wisco then brought out two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and handed one sachet to PO1 Rosal. After PO1 Rosal examined the substance, he removed his bull cap as the signal. Wisco, recognizing PO1 Rosal as a police officer, ran toward the direction of SPO1 Caldito. SPO1 Caldito intercepted him after a brief chase in which they fell into a canal. Immediately after his apprehension, Wisco was frisked, and the police recovered a cellphone, a lighter, and another plastic sachet with white crystalline substance.

At the place of arrest, after the apprehension, PO1 Rosal marked the sachet allegedly bought from Wisco as “AR” and the second sachet seized as “AR1”, in the presence of Barangay Chairman Armando Aguinaldo and two barangay kagawads. After the inventory was concluded, the items were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Valentine Juan, Laoag City for laboratory analysis, where Forensic Chemist Police Inspector Arniel y Ann Navarro examined the specimens. The Chemistry Report identified the contents of the two sachets as positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, with weights reflected as 0.0619 gram (A1/AR) and 0.1080 gram (A2/AR1). The Forensic Chemist then sealed the specimens and prepared the Final Chemistry Report No. D-138-2013-IN, before turnover to the evidence custodian for safekeeping.

Defense Version

Wisco denied the charge. He claimed that on the evening of November 2, 2013, he was outside his house to buy empanada for his daughter. While riding his bicycle near Guanzon Store, police officers Jonathan Caldito, Frederick Bulosan, and Mario Corcoro supposedly approached him and held the handle of his bicycle, causing it to fall. He asserted that after they frisked him, he only had a cellphone and money for empanada. He alleged that when the officers could not obtain anything from him, they brought him to the police station and later returned him to the vicinity of Guanzon Store where two plastic sachets were allegedly placed in front of the patrol car, with the barangay chairman supposedly asked to sign and photographs taken. Wisco maintained that he was framed and that the officers planted the sachets.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC found Wisco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The RTC held that the buy-bust operation was valid; that the prosecution established the elements of illegal sale; that the arrest was valid; and that Wisco’s denial failed because he was supposedly caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer. The RTC further ruled that the chain of custody was clearly established and that the defense offered nothing credible to overcome the prosecution evidence. The RTC imposed the statutory penalty of life imprisonment plus a fine of P500,000.00, and ordered forfeiture and destruction of the methamphetamine hydrochloride subject of the case.

Appellate Review and Issues

The CA affirmed the RTC. The CA did not give weight to Wisco’s denial and frame-up theory, emphasizing that he was allegedly caught during a legitimate buy-bust operation. It also ruled that Wisco’s denial could not prevail over the positive identification by police officers. The CA further found that the chain of custody was not broken.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the case required reconsideration of whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the elements of illegal sale, including the quantity and identity of the drug actually sold, and (b) the integrity and identity of the seized drug through the chain of custody, in view of the procedural safeguards under R.A. No. 9165.

Parties’ Positions on the Elements and the Chain of Custody

The Supreme Court focused on two interconnected matters arising from the trial records.

First, as to illegal sale, the Court noted that while Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes a penalty not dependent on quantity, the conviction could not stand beyond what the evidence established as the drug actually sold to the poseur-buyer. The testimony of PO1 Rosal described the alleged shabu handed to him and marked as “AR”. The testimony also showed that AR1 was the second sachet recovered from Wisco after his arrest and frisking.

Second, as to chain of custody, the Court examined compliance with statutory and jurisprudential requirements governing the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs, including the conduct of inventory and photographing under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (as applicable prior to amendments under R.A. No. 10640, considering the incident date of November 2013). The Court also assessed whether the prosecution proved the required links from seizure and marking, to turnover among custodians, to forensic examination, and finally to presentation in court.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Illegal Sale Proof Limited to the Sold Sachet

The Supreme Court reiterated that to convict for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution had to establish: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The Court emphasized that it was essential that the sale transaction actually occurred and that the object of the transaction was properly presented as evidence in court and shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused.

Applying this framework, the Court held that the evidence, particularly the testimonies of PO1 Rosal and SPO1 Caldito, showed that Wisco sold only one sachet to the poseur-buyer, the sachet marked “AR.” The sachet marked “AR1” was recovered from Wisco during frisking after his apprehension. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Wisco, at most, could only be convicted for selling the quantity stated for the sachet marked “AR,” which corresponded to 0.0619 gram of shabu. The Court reasoned further that a conviction for the sachet marked “AR1” would have required charging illegal possession under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, but the Information charging Wisco alleged a sale and did not include illegal possession.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Chain of Custody Not Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The Supreme Court then addressed chain of custody. It relied on the principle that the dangerous drug seized constitutes the very corpus delicti for drug offenses, and that the prosecution must establish beyond doubt that the substance offered in court is the same substance seized from the accused. The Court underscored that chain of custody ensures the removal of reasonable doubt as to the identity of the seized drug because narcotic substances are not readily identifiable and are susceptible to alteration or substitution.

The Court reiterated the jurisprudential rule that the prosecution must establish the links in chain of custody, namely: (1) seizure and marking, (2) turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, (3) turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist, and (4) turnover and submission to the court. It also discussed that, under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (pre-amendment), the physical inventory and photographing had to be conducted in the presence of specific required persons, including the accused or his representative, DOJ, media, and an elected public official.

As to the first link, the Court found noncompliance with the statutory presence requirements during the physical inventory and photographing. It found that only Barangay Chairman Aguinaldo and two unnamed barangay kagawads allegedly witnessed the marking, and that Aguinaldo signed the receipt/inventory. Yet Aguinaldo denied witnessing the marking and taking of photographs, and he testified that no DOJ or media representatives were present. The Court held that while the absence of the required witnesses does not automatically render the seizure inadmissible, the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason or show genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the required witnesses. The prosecution did not explain the absence of DOJ and media representatives, and the Court found that this compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

As to the second link, the Court identified discrepancies in the testimony of PO3 Bulosan regarding custody and turnover. Although PO1 Rosal testified that he handed the seized drugs to PO3 Bulosan, and PO3 Bulosan testified inconsistently, the Court noted that PO3 Bulosan’s name and signature did not appear in the chain of custody form as the immediate recipient after PO1 Rosal. More importantly, PO3 Bulosan’s direct and cross-examination versions conflicted as to whether he turned the drugs over to PO2 Bacud and whether he accompanied the transfer to the crime laboratory in a manner consistent with the chain of custody forms. The Court treated these conflicts as substantial because they affected the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. It also held that the prosecution’s failure to present PO2 Bacud in court to clarify the cus

...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