View full case

PEOPLE v. LAWRENCE GAJO Y BUENAFE

FACTS:

The accused, Lawrence and Rico, were found guilty of violating the sale and possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165. The case originated from a buy-bust operation conducted by the police against Lawrence, based on information from a civilian informant. During the operation, Lawrence sold a sachet of suspected shabu to an undercover police officer. Rico, who came out of Lawrence's house, also handed another sachet of suspected shabu to the police officer. More sachets of suspected shabu were found in Rico's pocket and Lawrence's house. Both Lawrence and Rico pleaded not guilty during the trial. The existence of a Chemistry Report confirming the presence of shabu was stipulated by the parties.

The arrest involved five armed police officers entering the house and questioning Rico, suspecting him to be someone named Bubot. Rico denied this and was subsequently frisked and asked to sit down. Lawrence, who was sleeping at the time, heard the commotion and came out of his room to intervene. He was also frisked and asked to sit beside Rico. The police conducted a search of the house and brought Rico and Lawrence to the police station. Rico claimed that SPO1 Arellano demanded money from him, which he denied having.

The police claimed to have recovered one sachet of shabu from Lawrence and two more sachets from Rico during their investigation. The seized items were marked and brought to the Crime Laboratory by a police officer.

The RTC found Rico and Lawrence guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fines. Rico and Lawrence appealed, arguing that proper procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs was not followed, and thus their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, stating that the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were established and that the chain of custody requirement was sufficiently complied with.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the prosecution establish the guilt of Lawrence and Rico beyond reasonable doubt?

  2. Was the chain of custody requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 complied with?

  3. Whether the failure to immediately mark the seized 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.

  4. Whether the non-presentation of Police Chief Inspector Anastacio B. Benzon (PC/Insp. Benzon) and PO2 Cruz to testify on the turnover of the confiscated shabu constituted another gap in the chain of custody.

  5. Whether the absence of a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items in the presence of the accused or their counsel, representative, media, and Department of Justice, and any elected public official is a violation of procedural rules.

  6. Whether or not the prosecution has justifiably proven its non-compliance with the procedural requirements in a buy-bust operation.

  7. Whether or not the failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 compromised the integrity of the seized evidence.

RULING:

  1. The Court agrees with Lawrence and Rico that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. The Court also agrees with Lawrence and Rico that the chain of custody requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 was not complied with.

  3. Yes, the failure to immediately mark the seized 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. The Court ruled that the failure to mark the illegal drugs immediately after confiscation and without the presence of the accused casts doubt on the prosecution's evidence and warrants the acquittal of the accused on reasonable doubt.

  4. Yes, the non-presentation of PC/Insp. Benzon and PO2 Cruz to testify on the turnover of the confiscated shabu constituted another gap in the chain of custody. The Court emphasized the necessity for every person who touched the seized illegal drug to describe how and from whom it was received, its condition upon receipt, and its condition upon delivery to the next link. The prosecution's failure to present PC/Insp. Benzon and PO2 Cruz created doubt and casted further gaps in the chain of custody.

  5. The absence of a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items in the presence of the accused or their counsel, representative, media, and Department of Justice, and any elected public official is a violation of procedural rules. While the strict compliance to procedural rules may not always be possible, the Court still emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence.

  6. The Court ruled in favor of the accused and granted their appeal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for its non-compliance with the procedural requirements in the buy-bust operation. The failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 also compromised the integrity of the seized evidence. As a result, the Court could not determine with moral certainty that the seized items presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused. Therefore, the guilt of the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt, and they were acquitted of the charges.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In order to convict an accused of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, as well as the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery and payment of the object sold. For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be established that the accused possessed the identified prohibited drug, such possession was not legally authorized, and the accused freely and consciously possessed it.

  • The corpus delicti or the confiscated illegal drugs must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of custody requirement ensures that there is no unnecessary doubt on the identity of the seized illegal drugs.

  • The immediate marking of seized illegal drugs and the presence of the accused during marking is important to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the recovered dangerous drug.

  • The failure to immediately mark the illegal drugs after confiscation and without the presence of the accused constitutes clear gaps in the chain of custody, casting doubt on the prosecution's evidence and warranting the acquittal of the accused on reasonable doubt.

  • The non-presentation of necessary witnesses who handled the seized illegal drugs, such as the investigating officer and the person who delivered the specimens to the crime laboratory, creates further gaps in the chain of custody.

  • The absence of a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items in the presence of the accused or their counsel, representative, media, and Department of Justice, and any elected public official violates procedural rules, but strict compliance may not always be possible. Nonetheless, adherence to procedural requirements is crucial.

  • Strict compliance to procedural rules may not always be possible, but the prosecution has the burden to prove justifiable reason for its non-compliance.

  • The safeguards provided under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be complied with in buy-bust operations to protect the innocent from abuse and violation of their rights and to ensure the integrity of the evidence presented in court.

  • The constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent must be upheld, prevailing over the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of the concerned police officers when the latter is overcome by contrary proof, such as non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements.