In People v. Michael Kurt John Bulawan y Andales, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and a broken chain of custody. The Court emphasized that for a conviction, the identities of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration must be established, along with the delivery and payment. This case highlights the critical importance of adhering to proper procedures in drug cases and ensuring the integrity of evidence.

When ‘Buy-Bust’ Turns Bust: How a Botched Drug Sting Led to Freedom

The case began with an Information filed against Michael Kurt John Bulawan y Andales, accusing him of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The charge stemmed from an alleged buy-bust operation where Bulawan purportedly sold a pack of dried marijuana fruiting tops to an undercover officer. At trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of 101 Rodolfo S. De La Cerna, Jr., the poseur buyer from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). According to De La Cerna, Bulawan handed him the marijuana after being introduced by a confidential informant. However, critical details regarding the payment for the drugs and the handling of the evidence came under scrutiny.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially convicted Bulawan of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, finding that the elements of illegal sale were not proven due to the absence of consideration and payment. Dissatisfied with this ruling, Bulawan appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC’s decision, convicting Bulawan of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, arguing that the delivery of the drugs constituted a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, regardless of whether payment was made. The CA cited People v. Conception, asserting that the mere act of delivery after an offer to buy is accepted suffices for conviction. This shift in conviction led to Bulawan’s appeal to the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of the buy-bust operation, the chain of custody of the evidence, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the arresting officers.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, focused on the elements required for a successful prosecution of illegal drug sale offenses. The Court reiterated that the identities of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration must be established, along with proof of delivery and payment. In this case, the element of consideration was notably absent. I01 de la Cerna testified that he did not bring any buy-bust money and that Bulawan delivered the marijuana without receiving any payment. The Court emphasized that the actual exchange of money for drugs is crucial in proving the sale. The absence of this element raised significant doubts about the validity of the alleged buy-bust operation.

In People v. Dasigan, where the marked money was shown to therein accused-appellant but was not actually given to her as she was immediately arrested when the shabu was handed over to the poseur-buyer, the Court acquitted said accused-appellant of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Citing People v. Hong Yen E, the Court held therein that it is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that the sale actually took place, and what consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller’s receipt of the marked money. While the parties may have agreed on the selling price of the shabu and delivery of payment was intended, these do not prove consummated sale. Receipt of the marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after, is required.

Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the prosecution’s claim of prior negotiation between the confidential informant and Bulawan. The prosecution failed to provide any evidence of this negotiation, leaving a critical gap in their narrative. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the prosecution’s duty to present a complete picture of the buy-bust operation, from the initial contact to the consummation of the sale. The lack of information regarding the negotiation and the promise of consideration further weakened the prosecution’s case.

Another critical aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision was the failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized marijuana. The chain of custody rule, as outlined in Section 21, Article II of R. A. No. 9165, mandates that the apprehending team must immediately inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. This process is designed to ensure the integrity and identity of the seized drugs. The Court found that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish this chain of custody, casting doubt on the authenticity of the evidence.

The testimony of I01 dela Cerna revealed inconsistencies and gaps in the handling of the seized marijuana. The prosecution failed to prove that the seized item was properly preserved from the time Bulawan allegedly handed it over until it was marked in the office. There was no evidence showing whether I01 dela Cerna turned it over to his superior, whether it was returned to him for transport to the crime laboratory, whether the specimen was intact upon arrival at the laboratory, or whether the proper officers observed the necessary precautions. The forensic chemist, PSI Erma Condino Salvacion, testified that she tested “suspected Marijuana leaves wrapped in a magazine paper with markings ‘RDC-D’,” indicating that the substance was not sealed in a plastic container upon confiscation, as required by established procedures.

In People v. Habana, as reiterated in People v. Martinez, et al., we ruled that:

Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over a supervising officer, who would then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession of the substance changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized substance and the procedure he observed to preserve its integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory.

If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in one and seal the same. In this way the substance would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused. Further, after the laboratory technician tests and verifies the nature of the substance in the container, he should put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it again with a new seal since the police officer’s seal has been broken. At the trial, the technician can then describe the sealed condition of the plastic container when it was handed to him and testify on the procedure he took afterwards to preserve its integrity.

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.

Because the seized substance was not sealed, the prosecution was obligated to present all officers who handled the evidence from the time of seizure to its presentation in court. Their failure to do so further undermined the integrity of the evidence. Given these deficiencies, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bulawan was guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Court also addressed the issue of possession, clarifying that while possession is necessarily included in the sale of dangerous drugs, the compromised chain of custody meant that Bulawan could not be held liable for illegal possession either.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution successfully proved the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized evidence. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed on both counts, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
What elements are needed to prove illegal sale of drugs?	To prove illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must establish the identities of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration, as well as the delivery of the drugs and the payment for them. Proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, along with the presentation of the corpus delicti, is essential.
Why was the lack of payment significant in this case?	The lack of payment was significant because it undermined the element of consideration, which is a crucial requirement for proving the illegal sale of drugs. Without proof that money or something of value was exchanged for the drugs, the prosecution could not establish that a sale had occurred.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule, as defined in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, requires that the seized drugs be immediately inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. This process ensures that the identity and integrity of the evidence are maintained.
Why is the chain of custody important?	The chain of custody is important because it safeguards the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, which are used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. A broken chain of custody can lead to reasonable doubt about the identity and authenticity of the evidence.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, it casts doubt on the integrity of the evidence, and the court may find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This can lead to an acquittal, as it did in this case.
What was the role of the confidential informant in this case?	The confidential informant allegedly negotiated the drug sale with the accused. However, the prosecution failed to present any evidence of this negotiation, which weakened their case and raised doubts about the validity of the buy-bust operation.
Can a person be convicted of possession if acquitted of sale?	In general, possession is necessarily included in the sale of dangerous drugs. However, in this case, because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the subject dangerous drugs, compromising its identity and integrity, the accused could not be held liable for illegal possession either.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of meticulously following legal procedures in drug cases and ensuring that all elements of the crime are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The failure to establish consideration for the drug transaction and the broken chain of custody were critical factors that led to the acquittal of Michael Kurt John Bulawan y Andales.

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 OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MICHAEL KURT JOHN BULAWAN Y ANDALES, G.R. No. 204441, June 08, 2016