View full case

PEOPLE v. MYRNA GAYOSO Y ARGUELLES

FACTS:

The case involves an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guiuan, Eastern Samar, which found Myrna Gayoso guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs). The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, which imposed a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for illegal sale of shabu, and an indeterminate prison term of eight years and one day to fourteen years, eight months and one day for illegal possession of 0.53 gram of shabu.

The factual antecedents show that the police conducted a surveillance on appellant after receiving reports of her involvement in illegal drug activities. A search warrant was obtained, but before implementing it, a "confirmatory test-buy" was conducted wherein the police, with a marked money, bought shabu from the appellant. The police then proceeded to search her house, where they found sachets of shabu, drug paraphernalia, and tin foil under the mattress. The seized items were brought to PDEA and PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, and the results confirmed the presence of shabu.

Appellant denied the charges and claimed that the sachets were planted by the police officers. She argued that the officers fabricated the charges due to a dispute her family had with a police officer regarding a fence.

The RTC found appellant guilty based on the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses and the seized items as evidence.

The appellant appealed to the CA, arguing that the search warrant was invalid and that the "test-buy operation" conducted constituted instigation. The appellant also claimed that the shabu presented as evidence was inadmissible due to gaps in its chain of custody. The OSG filed a brief supporting the affirmance of the RTC's decision.

The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling, finding the appellant guilty of unauthorized sale and possession of drugs. The CA held that all elements for the sale and possession of drugs were established, and that the "test-buy operation" was a valid entrapment. The CA also noted that the deposition of a police officer established probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal but did not file a supplemental brief. The OSG also opted not to file a supplemental brief as it had already refuted the arguments raised by the appellant.

The issue of probable cause for the search warrant was discussed, with the court finding that there was sufficient basis for its issuance. The court also ruled that the "confirmatory test-buy" did not amount to instigation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.

  2. Whether the "confirmatory test-buy" conducted by the police officers amounted to instigation.

  3. Whether the prosecution established the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

  4. Whether the chain of custody rule was properly complied with in this case.

  5. Whether there were breaks and gaps in the chain of custody of the seized shabu.

  6. Whether or not the prosecution has established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs.

  7. Whether or not there was non-compliance with the procedural safeguards relative to the custody and disposition of the seized drugs.

RULING:

  1. The court held that there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. The deposition of a witness who had personal knowledge of the appellant's drug pushing activities served as a basis for the finding of probable cause.

  2. The court ruled that the "confirmatory test-buy" conducted by the police officers did not amount to instigation. The poseur buyer merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct and there was no proof that he induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.

  3. The court agreed with the appellant's argument that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The chain of custody is necessary to ensure the integrity and authenticity of the evidence. In this case, there were gaps in the chain of custody and non-compliance with the requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

  4. The Supreme Court held that the chain of custody rule was not properly complied with in this case. There were significant breaks and gaps in the chain of custody of the seized shabu. The marking of the seized items was not done in the presence of the accused and there was no evidence to prove authorship of the markings. The turnover of the seized shabu from the arresting officers to the investigating officer was not properly established. The transfer of the seized shabu from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist was also not properly established. The testimony of the forensic chemist failed to establish that the substance tested positive for shabu was the same substance allegedly recovered from the accused. As a result, the Court could not conclude with moral certainty that the shabu confiscated from the accused was the same as that presented for laboratory examination and then presented in court.

  5. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, which casts uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the subject drugs. The failure to offer testimony to establish a substantially complete chain of custody and the inappropriate manner of handling the evidence prior to its offer in court diminishes the government's chances of successfully prosecuting a drug case.

  6. The apprehending team did not conduct a physical inventory or photograph the seized drugs in the presence of a representative from the Department of Justice, as required by Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165. The non-compliance with these requirements, without a justifiable ground, renders the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Probable cause does not require absolute certainty, but rather reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed or is committing the crime charged.

  • Confirmatory test-buy conducted by police officers does not amount to instigation or entrapment.

  • The chain of custody must be established in cases involving drugs to ensure the integrity and authenticity of the evidence.

  • The chain of custody rule requires the establishment of four links: seizure and marking, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and turnover to the court.

  • Marking of the seized contraband should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation.

  • The failure to comply with the marking of evidence immediately after confiscation constitutes a break in the chain of custody.

  • Each link in the chain of custody must be properly established in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

  • The preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items is the legal standard that must be observed in complying with the chain of custody rule.

  • The failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of seized drugs and the inappropriate handling of evidence prior to its offer in court undermine the government's chances of successfully prosecuting a drug case.

  • Non-compliance with the procedural safeguards relative to the custody and disposition of seized drugs, as provided by Section 21 of RA 9165, renders the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, unless there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.