In People vs. Balibay, the Supreme Court acquitted Edilberto and Maricel Balibay due to critical failures in establishing the chain of custody and identifying the corpus delicti of the alleged illegal drugs. The Court emphasized that without a clear, unbroken chain of custody, doubts arise as to whether the evidence presented in court was the same substance seized from the accused, thereby undermining the foundation of drug-related charges. This ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect individual rights and ensure justice.

When Evidence Vanishes: Did Police Procedures Fail in This Drug Case?

The case began with two separate Informations filed against Edilberto Balibay and Maricel Balibay Bija-an. Edilberto and Maricel were charged with violating Section 5, in relation to Section 26 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for allegedly selling 0.09 gram of shabu to a poseur buyer. Maricel alone was charged with violating Section 11, Paragraph 3 of Article II of the same Act for allegedly possessing 0.10 gram of shabu. These charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the police, leading to their arrest and the seizure of the alleged illegal drugs.

The prosecution presented testimonies from Senior Police Officer 1 Mariano Durango, Police Officer 3 Danilo Radam, and Police Officer 1 Cotta Tanggote. PO1 Tanggote, acting as the poseur-buyer, testified that Maricel handed him a sachet containing white crystalline substance, after which back-up police officers arrived and arrested both accused. PO3 Radam testified that he recovered the marked money from Edilberto, while PO1 Tanggote stated he recovered another sachet of white crystalline substance from Maricel. Both were brought to the PDEA Office for investigation. The seized specimens were marked and sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where Chemist April Grace Carbajal Madroño confirmed the substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.

The defense presented a different narrative. Accused Edilberto testified that a friend, Jonjong Abonitalla, requested him to buy shabu but he refused. Abonitalla then asked Maricel, Edilberto’s daughter, who eventually agreed and handed Abonitalla a sachet containing white crystalline substance. Subsequently, they were arrested by police officers looking for another individual, Elsa Budiongan, an alleged shabu supplier. Maricel claimed the police arrested her and her father when she could not provide information about Budiongan’s whereabouts, suggesting a case of mistaken identity and planted evidence.

Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) convicted the accused, rejecting the defense’s claim of planted evidence. The lower courts relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the arresting officers. However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, focusing on the critical lapses in establishing the corpus delicti and maintaining the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

The Supreme Court emphasized that in drug-related cases, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, along with the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must present the corpus delicti, which is the seized illegal drugs, with unwavering exactitude. This means establishing that the substance seized from the suspect is the same substance presented in court as evidence. In this case, the Court found that the prosecution failed to meet this standard.

The Supreme Court highlighted a critical failure in identifying the seized substance during the cross-examination of PO1 Tanggote. He admitted that he could not identify the markings on the evidence presented in court, raising doubts as to whether it was the same substance he seized from the accused. The court quoted PO1 Tanggote’s testimony:

Q: Who put this PDEA below of these two sachets of shabu?
A: I do not know, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness, when you recovered these two sachets of shabu at the alleged crime scene, did you attempt to open this one to confirm what is this inside?
A: No, sir.

Moreover, the Court pointed out the failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is defined as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of seizure to presentation in court. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, provides:

“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment at each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court and destruction. Such record of movements and custody of the seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and times when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

The chain of evidence must be maintained through proper exhibit handling, storage, labeling, and recording. The Supreme Court noted the prosecution’s failure to establish how SPO1 Amacanim, the investigating officer, and Chemist Madroño, the laboratory technician, preserved the integrity of the substance. SPO1 Amacanim, who allegedly labeled the substance, did not testify in court, leaving a gap in the custodial chain. The Court cited People v. Habana, emphasizing that:

If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would have to present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of custody, no matter how briefly one’s possession has been. Each of them has to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while in his care.

Without the testimony of SPO1 Amacanim, the Court could not be certain that the substance offered as evidence was the same substance seized from the accused. This failure deprived the court of the means to ascertain the corpus delicti. The Court also noted the arresting officer’s failure to properly seal the seized shabu, further undermining the integrity of the evidence.

The Supreme Court reiterated that non-compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. In People v. Lim, the Court emphasized that:

The failure of the agents to comply with such a requirement raises a doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from the appellants. It negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the PAOC-TF agents.

Due to these failures, the Supreme Court acquitted Edilberto and Maricel Balibay. The Court emphasized the arresting officer’s disregard of procedural requirements, the failure to establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti with moral certainty, and the hiatus in the chain of custody.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, establishing an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court. The Supreme Court found critical lapses in both aspects, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
What is the significance of the ‘chain of custody’ in drug cases?	The chain of custody is crucial because it ensures that the substance tested and presented in court is the same one seized from the accused, safeguarding against tampering, substitution, or misidentification. An unbroken chain of custody is vital for maintaining the integrity of the evidence.
Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused?	The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody and to prove with moral certainty that the substance presented in court was the same one seized. The Court found that the arresting officer failed to properly seal the seized drugs and that key witnesses, like SPO1 Amacanim, did not testify.
What is the role of the poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation?	The poseur-buyer is an undercover operative who pretends to purchase illegal drugs from a suspect to gather evidence for prosecution. Their testimony is vital for establishing the elements of the illegal sale of drugs.
What is meant by ‘corpus delicti‘ in drug cases?	In drug cases, the corpus delicti refers to the actual illegal drugs seized from the accused. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance seized is indeed an illegal drug and that it is the same substance presented in court as evidence.
What happens when there are doubts about the integrity of seized drugs?	When there are doubts about whether the seized substance is the same substance examined and presented in court, it can lead to the acquittal of the accused. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the integrity of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is the ‘presumption of regularity’ in the performance of official duties?	The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes public officers perform their duties with honesty and integrity, following established procedures. However, this presumption can be overturned if there is evidence of irregularity or non-compliance with legal requirements.
How does Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 relate to this case?	Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the procedures that law enforcement officers must follow when handling seized drugs, including immediate inventory and photographing of the evidence in the presence of the accused. Non-compliance with these procedures can raise doubts about the integrity of the evidence.

The People vs. Balibay case serves as a crucial reminder of the stringent requirements for handling drug-related evidence and the importance of upholding procedural safeguards. The ruling underscores the necessity for law enforcement to meticulously follow the chain of custody requirements to ensure the integrity and admissibility of evidence in court. This is essential to protect individual rights and prevent wrongful convictions.

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 vs. Balibay, G.R. No. 202701, September 10, 2014