In People v. Cerdon, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Alfredo Cerdon for the illegal sale of shabu, underscoring the importance of maintaining the chain of custody of drug evidence. This case clarifies that while strict adherence to the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is preferred, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the items, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The ruling reinforces that the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody to prove the corpus delicti in drug cases, balancing procedural safeguards with the need to effectively prosecute drug offenses.

“Bingo”: How a Buy-Bust Operation Hinged on Preserving Evidence Against a Shabu Seller

The case of People of the Philippines v. Alfredo Cerdon y Sanchez arose from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Mabalacat Police Station. Acting on a tip, the police organized a team to apprehend Cerdon, who was allegedly selling shabu in his residence. PO1 Michael Yusi, acting as the poseur-buyer, successfully purchased a sachet of shabu from Cerdon using marked money. Following the transaction, Cerdon was arrested, and the sachet of shabu was seized.

At trial, Cerdon denied the charges, claiming that the police officers had barged into his house, planted the evidence, and arrested him without due process. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense beyond reasonable doubt and that the chain of custody of the shabu was not properly established. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Cerdon guilty, a decision that was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Cerdon then appealed to the Supreme Court, reiterating his arguments regarding the lack of evidence and the broken chain of custody.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by reaffirming the established principle that factual findings of trial courts, especially those concerning the credibility of witnesses, are generally respected unless there are glaring errors or unsupported conclusions. In this case, the Court found no reason to overturn the lower courts’ assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. It then turned to the essential elements required to secure a conviction for the illegal sale of shabu. As the Court has previously held:

In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved:  (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. (People v. Isnani, G.R. No. 133006, 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 439, 449)

The Court found that these elements were sufficiently established in this case. PO1 Yusi, the poseur-buyer, positively identified Cerdon as the seller. PO3 Laxamana, a back-up operative, corroborated Yusi’s testimony. The sachet of shabu was presented as evidence, and its contents were confirmed through laboratory examination to contain methylamphetamine hydrochloride. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation was also presented, further solidifying the prosecution’s case.

Cerdon raised concerns regarding the police officers’ compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, which outlines the procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated illegal drugs. Specifically, he argued that the police officers failed to conduct an inventory and photograph the confiscated items in his presence and in the presence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 provides:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

The Court acknowledged that the police officers did not strictly adhere to these procedures. However, it emphasized that non-compliance does not automatically render the arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 contain a proviso that allows for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. This provision recognizes that strict compliance with the procedural requirements may not always be possible, and that the focus should be on ensuring the reliability of the evidence.

Building on this principle, the Court addressed Cerdon’s argument that the prosecution failed to prove the crucial links in the chain of custody of the shabu. The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers of the evidence from the time of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring that the evidence presented is the same as that which was seized from the accused. Cerdon argued that there were gaps in the chain of custody, such as the immediate marking of the seized shabu, the identity of the person who received the sachet at the crime laboratory, and the non-presentation of the forensic chemist.

The Court found that PO1 Yusi had placed the necessary markings on the plastic sachet of shabu at the police station. It clarified that marking the seized items should ideally be done immediately upon confiscation and in the presence of the accused. However, it acknowledged that marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team could also be considered compliant with the rules on chain of custody, citing People v. Gum-Oyen, (G.R. No. 182231, 16 April 2009, 585 SCRA 668.)

Addressing the non-presentation of the forensic chemist, the Court cited People v. Quebral (G.R. No. 185379, 27 November 2009, 606 SCRA 247), explaining that the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases is the dangerous drug itself, not the testimony of the laboratory analyst. The Court noted that the report of an official forensic chemist enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation. Therefore, the absence of the chemist’s testimony did not invalidate the prosecution’s case.

This approach contrasts with a rigid interpretation of the chain of custody rule, which could lead to the acquittal of guilty individuals due to minor procedural lapses. Instead, the Court adopted a more pragmatic approach, focusing on whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. This approach balances the need to protect the rights of the accused with the need to effectively prosecute drug offenses. The Court determined that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated an unbroken chain of custody in this case.

The Court also addressed Cerdon’s defense of denial, noting that it deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence, as law enforcement agencies are presumed to have acted in the regular performance of their official duties. Moreover, there was no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers to falsely testify against Cerdon. The court noted:

Bare denial of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers. (People v. Lee Hoi Ming, 459 Phil. 187, 195 (2003); People v. Saludes, 451 Phil. 719, 727 (2003))

In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding Cerdon’s conviction for the illegal sale of shabu. The Court found that the prosecution had proven all the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt and that the chain of custody of the seized drug was sufficiently established. The Court emphasized that while strict compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is preferred, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the items, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution successfully proved the illegal sale of shabu by Alfredo Cerdon beyond reasonable doubt, considering his arguments regarding the lack of evidence and the broken chain of custody.
What is the “chain of custody” in drug cases?	The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers of evidence, from the time of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring that the evidence presented is the same as that which was seized from the accused.
What are the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165?	Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation, in the presence of the accused and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21?	Non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the items, provided the prosecution can prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
Why was the forensic chemist not presented as a witness?	The Supreme Court has held that the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases is the dangerous drug itself, not the testimony of the laboratory analyst, and that the report of an official forensic chemist enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation.
What is the significance of “marking” the seized items?	“Marking” of the seized items ensures that they are the same items that enter the chain of custody and are eventually offered in evidence. Ideally, marking should be done immediately upon confiscation and in the presence of the accused.
What was the accused’s defense in this case?	The accused, Alfredo Cerdon, denied the charges and claimed that the police officers had barged into his house, planted the evidence, and arrested him without due process, a defense the court did not find credible.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding Cerdon’s conviction for the illegal sale of shabu, finding that the prosecution had proven all the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

The Cerdon case highlights the judiciary’s effort to strike a balance between ensuring procedural safeguards in drug cases and effectively combating drug-related crimes. While strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is preferred, the Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items. This approach ensures that the focus remains on the reliability of the evidence, rather than on minor procedural lapses that do not affect the truth-finding process.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Cerdon, G.R. No. 201111, August 06, 2014