23. People v. Posos & Grezola, GR No.
226492, October 2, 2019
Elements for illegal sale of drugs
Chain of Custody
Facts:
It was alleged in the year 2011, that IA3 Sandaan received a report involving drug
activities in Caloocan, hence a buy bust team was set by the next day, designed to capture
accused-appellants Posos and Grezola.
During the operation, SI2 Nebato was not able to deliver the payment to Posos. It must
also be emphasized that IA3 Sandaan instructed the team to go back to their office because a
crowd was already starting to gather around them. It was in their office where they performed the
inventory and took photographs of appellants with the seized item and the buy bust money, along
with barangay officials to witness.
Accused-appellants Efren Posos and Thelma Grezola were charged with violation of
Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article 2 of RA 9165. However, both accused pleaded not
guilty.
The Regional Trial Court found appellants guilty and was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.
Issue:
1. Whether or not all elements for illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA
9165 shown.
2. Whether or not the chain of custody rule was complied.
Ruling:
For Issue No. 1
For someone to be charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the offense requires the
following elements: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration;
and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.
In the case given, the second element of payment required was not shown in the case. The
supposed payment remained in the possession of SI2 Nebato. The Court held that all stages of
the sale must be duly established. The prosecution must present a complete picture detailing the
transaction, which starts from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the
offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale
by the delivery of the illegal drug.
Since there was the absence of delivery of payment, appellant cannot be convicted of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
For Issue No. 2
For drug cases, Section 21 of RA 9165 prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus
delicti. The drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, hence, it must be established
that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in the court.
In the case of People v. Gayoso, the links in the chain of custody were enumerated as following:
first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by
the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission
of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
For the first link, the seizure and marking should be done immediately at the places of
arrest and seizure. This includes the inventory and taking of photograph of the items seized with
the presence of a representative from the media, DOJ and any elected public official. In this case
however, the Court had considered the conduct of marking at the police station given that a
crown had already begun milling around the place of arrest. But still, the Court emphasized the
first link was repeatedly breached. Only representative of an elected public official was present,
and there was absence of representatives from the media and DOJ.
The second link was also violated. SI2 Nebato did not turn over the seized item to an
investigating officer.
For the third link, although SI2 Nebato delivered the alleged item to the crime laboratory,
there was no showing how the same was truly handled after the inventory and while in transit.
Lastly, the fourth link, in the case given, it was not shown how the evidence custodian
handled and stored the seized item before the same was retrieved for presentation in court. In
fact, Forensic Chemist Cabatic said that he had no more personal knowledge as to how the item
was handled after he turned it over to the evidence custodian.
Hence, the Court decided that there is indeed failure in the chain of custody. Thus the
accused were acquitted.
