View full case

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL CABUHAY

FACTS:

This case involves the appeal of Michael Cabuhay y Villar (Michael) from the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming his conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that a police officer acted as a poseur-buyer and conducted a buy-bust operation after receiving information about an ongoing sale of shabu by Michael. During the operation, marked money was handed to Michael in exchange for a sachet containing shabu. Another sachet of shabu was recovered from Michael's pocket upon his arrest. The evidence was turned over to the investigating officer and the accused was identified by the witnesses.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Michael of illegal possession of dangerous drugs but convicted him of illegal sale of dangerous drugs based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Michael appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) but the CA affirmed the RTC decision, stating that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Michael now appeals before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs?

  2. Did the police officers observe the procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165?

  3. Whether the prosecution has established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs in order to prove the guilt of the accused.

RULING:

  1. The prosecution failed to demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody. The chain of custody rule requires that every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, be testified to and described by witnesses. In this case, the prosecution did not account for the turnover of the illegal drug from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist, and from the forensic chemist to the court. The non-observance of the chain of custody procedure casts doubt on the integrity of the seized drugs, thus creating reasonable doubt in the conviction of the accused.

  2. The police officers failed to observe the proper procedure in the custody of confiscated dangerous drugs as mandated by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The inventory of the confiscated drugs was not signed by the accused, his representative, representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, or an elected public official. Additionally, no photographs were presented as required by the law. These procedural lapses further weaken the prosecution’s case and raise doubts on the integrity of the seized evidence.

  3. No, the prosecution has failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. The stipulations made by the parties only covered the first requisite as stated in People v. Pajarin - that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact. However, the stipulations did not cover the second and third requisites - that the forensic chemist resealed the item after examination and placed his own marking on it to prevent tampering. As a result, there is doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized drug, and this doubt prevents the prosecution from overcoming the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Therefore, the Court is duty bound to render a judgment of acquittal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In prosecutions for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the elements necessary are the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the drug and the payment. The corpus delicti, which is the actual commission of the crime, must also be proven. (Doctrine of Corpus Delicti)

  • In cases involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the seized drugs themselves constitute the corpus delicti of the offense. The chain of custody rule is employed to ensure the authenticity and integrity of the seized drugs as evidence. (Doctrine of Chain of Custody)

  • The chain of custody is established by testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence. All persons who had possession of the seized item must describe how it was received, where it was kept, and the precautions taken to prevent tampering or substitution. (Doctrine of Chain of Custody)

  • Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which pertains to the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs, can lead to doubts on the integrity of the evidence. (Doctrine of Non-Observance of Procedural Requirements)

  • The failure to observe the procedural requirements under Section 21 may not necessarily result in acquittal if the chain of custody remains unbroken and there are justifiable grounds for non-compliance. However, such liberality does not apply when no justifiable grounds were offered for non-compliance. (Doctrine of Non-Observance of Procedural Requirements)

  • In order to establish an unbroken chain of custody, it is necessary to prove that the seized item was properly handled, stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded from the time of seizure until its presentation in court. Failure to establish these precautions creates doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized item.

  • Stipulations made by the parties should include not only the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and the analytical results obtained, but also the precautions taken by the forensic chemist after the laboratory examination and the manner in which the specimen was handled before it came into the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left their custody.