People vs. Gajo

The identity of the confiscated illegal drug must be proven through an unbroken chain of custody from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court; failure to mark the drug immediately after confiscation and in the presence of the accused, coupled with the non-presentation of necessary witnesses to account for every link in the chain, renders the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Members of the Intel Personnel Department of the San Mateo (Rizal) Municipal Police Station placed Lawrence Gajo, a resident of Pag-asa Compound, Ampid I, San Mateo, Rizal, under surveillance after receiving information from a civilian informant. PO3 Geraldo Justo conducted further surveillance for about a week before a buy-bust operation was planned for the evening of March 23, 2007. Police prepared two marked ₱100 bills and proceeded to Lawrence’s house. The ensuing operation led to the arrest of Lawrence and his brother Rico and the confiscation of four heat-sealed plastic sachets of suspected shabu.

• The Informant Tip and Surveillance: Sometime in March 2007, the Intel Personnel Department of the San Mateo Municipal Police Station received information from a civilian informant regarding Lawrence Gajo’s drug activities, prompting surveillance. A week before the buy-bust, PO3 Justo personally conducted surveillance to ascertain the target’s physical appearance and the location of his residence.

• Preparation for the Buy-Bust Operation: On March 23, 2007, at approximately 11:05 p.m., PO3 Justo, PO1 Sangahin, and PO1 San Pedro were on duty and planned a buy-bust operation against Lawrence. PO3 Justo initialed two ₱100 bills with “GMJ.” The pre-arranged signal among the officers was that PO3 Justo, as poseur-buyer, would remove his cap upon a successful purchase.

• The Alleged Sale: At about 11:20 p.m., the team arrived at the target area. PO3 Justo alighted and approached Lawrence, who was standing near a lamp post. PO3 Justo handed Lawrence the ₱200.00 and said, “pakuha ng dos.” Lawrence accepted the money, replied “sandali lang, asa bahay,” and went inside the house. Shortly after, a man later identified as Rico Gajo emerged and handed PO3 Justo one small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. PO3 Justo then removed his cap.

• Arrests and Recovery of Items: PO1 San Pedro and PO1 Sangahin rushed in upon the signal. PO3 Justo held Rico, informed him of his constitutional rights, and made him empty his pockets; two additional plastic sachets of suspected shabu were recovered from Rico. Meanwhile, PO1 San Pedro and PO1 Sangahin entered Lawrence’s house. From Lawrence, PO1 San Pedro recovered the two marked ₱100 bills and another plastic sachet of suspected shabu.

• Marking and Handling at the Police Station: PO3 Justo marked the seized items only upon arrival at the police station — the three sachets from Rico as “GMJ,” “GMJ-1,” and “GMJ-2,” and the sachet recovered from Lawrence as “GMJ-3.” The marking was done in the presence of PO1 San Pedro and PO1 Sangahin, but without the accused, who were already locked inside a jail cell. PO3 Justo claimed a commotion at the scene prevented immediate marking; PO1 San Pedro, however, testified unequivocally that there was no commotion.

• Inventory and Turnover: PO1 San Pedro prepared an inventory of the recovered items at the police station. The Request for Laboratory Examination identified a certain PO2 Cruz — not PO3 Justo or any apprehending officer — as the person who delivered the specimens to the Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory, Tikling, Taytay, Rizal. The prosecution and defense stipulated to the intended testimony of Forensic Chemist P/I Ruben M. Apostol, Jr., whose Chemistry Report No. D-140-07 confirmed the specimens weighed 0.01 gram (GMJ), 0.02 gram (GMJ-1), 0.02 gram (GMJ-2), and 0.01 gram (GMJ-3) and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Neither the investigating officer, PC/Insp. Anastacio B. Benzon, nor PO2 Cruz was presented as a witness.

• Version of the Defense: Lawrence and Rico denied the charges. They testified that at around 11:00 p.m. on March 23, 2007, five armed men in civilian clothes barged into their house looking for a neighbor called “Bubot.” SPO1 Arellano allegedly poked a gun at Rico and demanded ₱20,000.00. The men searched the house, frisked both brothers, and forcibly brought them to the police station. No buy-bust operation took place, and the items were planted.

• Non-Compliance with Chain of Custody: Petitioners maintained that the police failed to observe the mandatory procedures for the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs under Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165. The drugs were not immediately marked at the place of confiscation, and marking was performed outside the presence of the accused. The links in the chain of custody were incomplete due to the prosecution’s failure to present key witnesses who handled the specimens. These fatal gaps negated proof beyond reasonable doubt.

• Substantial Compliance and Integrity Preserved: The People countered that the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven. The chain of custody was substantially complied with; any procedural lapses did not compromise the integrity or evidentiary value of the seized shabu. The sachets were accounted for and positively identified in court.

• First Link — Seizure and Marking: Whether the failure to mark the seized shabu immediately at the scene of confiscation and in the presence of the accused constituted a fatal break in the chain of custody.

• Second Link — Turnover to Investigating Officer: Whether the non-presentation of PC/Insp. Anastacio B. Benzon, the investigating officer who received the drugs from the apprehending team, undermined the chain of custody.

• Third Link — Delivery to the Crime Laboratory: Whether the failure to present PO2 Cruz, the courier who delivered the specimens to the forensic laboratory, created an impermissible gap in the chain.

• Overall Identity of the Corpus Delicti: Whether the cumulative gaps in the chain of custody rendered it impossible for the prosecution to establish with moral certainty that the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused.

• First Link — Seizure and Marking: The chain of custody was broken from the start. Marking must be done immediately upon seizure and in the presence of the apprehended violator to serve as a reference for all subsequent handlers and to isolate the evidence from other materials. PO3 Justo conceded he marked the items only at the police station. PO1 San Pedro’s testimony that no commotion occurred deprived the prosecution of any justifiable ground for delayed marking. The marking was performed while the accused were already detained and entirely absent, which alone was fatal to the prosecution’s case pursuant to People v. Ismael.

• Second Link — Turnover to Investigating Officer: The gap was compounded by the absence of PC/Insp. Benzon’s testimony. The apprehending officer allegedly turned over the seized drugs to him, but without Benzon’s account, the condition and handling of the drugs during that transfer remained unexplained, creating another break in the chain.

• Third Link — Delivery to the Crime Laboratory: Although the Request for Laboratory Examination identified PO2 Cruz as the person who brought the specimens to the Rizal Crime Laboratory, PO2 Cruz was never presented to describe how and from whom he received the items and how he delivered them. This omission constituted yet another unverified link, further eroding the chain’s integrity.

• Overall Identity of the Corpus Delicti: The cumulative failure to present the testimony of every person who had custody of the seized drugs and to observe the mandatory initial marking protocol meant the identity of the corpus delicti was not established with the required certainty. The accused were therefore entitled to an acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

• Chain of Custody under Section 21, R.A. 9165 — To convict for illegal sale or possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove an unbroken chain of custody of the seized substance, defined as the recorded and authorized movements and custody of the confiscated items. The four links that must be accounted for through credible testimony are: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug at the place of confiscation and in the presence of the accused; (2) the turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) the submission of the drug from the forensic chemist to the court. Every handler must describe how and from whom the item was received, its condition, and how and to whom it was transferred.

• Immediate Marking in the Presence of the Accused — Marking must be done immediately upon seizure of the illegal drugs and in the presence of the apprehended violator. This requirement is not a procedural technicality; it sets apart the seized item from other materials and provides a fixed reference for all subsequent handlers, thus preserving its identity and evidentiary value. Non-compliance, absent any justifiable ground, is fatal to the prosecution’s case and casts reasonable doubt on the evidence.

• People v. Ismael Applied — The principle established in People v. Ismael (G.R. No. 208095, February 20, 2017) that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs after confiscation and in the presence of the accused vitiates the chain of custody was directly applied to acquit the accused.

• “Marking must be done immediately upon the seizure of the illegal drugs and in the presence of the apprehended violator of law. Such prompt marking is important because the subsequent handlers of the seized items will use the marking as reference. The marking also sets apart the seized item from other materials from the moment it was confiscated until its disposal after the proceedings. In fine, marking is essential to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the recovered dangerous drug.”

• “Since there was no commotion that transpired after the seizure of shabu, there was nothing that would prevent PO3 Justo from marking the shabu immediately after confiscation. Moreover, PO3 Justo marked it without the presence of Lawrence and Rico… Indeed, the failure to immediately mark the shabu after confiscation, and for marking it without the presence of the accused constituted clear gaps in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs.”

• People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208095, February 20, 2017 — Followed; held that failure to mark seized drugs immediately after confiscation and in the accused’s presence casts doubt on the prosecution evidence and warrants acquittal on reasonable doubt.

• People v. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017 — Cited for the definitions of corpus delicti in drug cases and the chain of custody requirement as indispensable to proving the identity of the seized drug.

• People v. Hementiza, G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017 — Cited for the enumeration of the four links in the chain of custody that the prosecution must establish.

• People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121 (2013) — Cited in People v. Ismael as authority for the rule on immediate marking and its necessity to preserve the integrity of the evidence.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The elements were alleged but the chain of custody was found wanting.

• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Same failure of proof relating to the identity of the prohibited substance.

• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640 — Custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs. The requirements of physical inventory, photographing, and the presence of the accused, an elected official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or media were referenced. The provision also includes a saving clause excusing non-compliance on justifiable grounds provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The police’s non-compliance in this case was not justified, and the integrity of the drugs was not shown to be preserved.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, and Associate Justice Noel Gimenez Tijam.

N/A — The decision was unanimous among the members of the First Division. No separate opinions were filed.