The Supreme Court has acquitted four individuals convicted of illegally selling nearly two kilograms of shabu, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt because of critical breaks in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
The Case
On March 3, 2016, agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office in Cagayan de Oro City conducted a buy-bust operation at the second-level parking area of Gaisano Mall in Iligan City. The operation targeted Sanawiya Apaso Calombang y Manua, also known as "Soraya Umpa," who had been implicated in illegal drug activities by a confidential informant the previous day. Soraya arrived with Jamiey Sarif y Balo, Khadafi Aloyodany Macauco, and Ryan Abdul Maliky Tarantanto aboard a black Toyota Vios. The group boarded the PDEA team's white Isuzu Crosswind, where poseur-buyer IO II Grace Lim showed a blue sling bag containing PHP 3,000,000.00 in boodle money, each bundle topped with a genuine PHP 1,000.00 bill. Soraya instructed Ryan to hand her a gray backpack, which contained two large sachets of shabu. Lim received the backpack and handed over the sling bag. IO I Joshua Gulleban then activated the vehicle's hazard lights — the pre-arranged signal that the transaction was consummated — and the team arrested all four. The two sachets weighed a total of 1,939.0 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iligan City, Branch 6, found all four guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision.
The Issue
Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs sufficient to prove the corpus delicti — the body of the crime — beyond reasonable doubt.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Singh, reversed the CA and acquitted all four accused. The Court declared that the prosecution failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and that these deficiencies were fatal to the prosecution's case. The dispositive portion of the decision states: the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed in G.R. No. 254854 and the Notice of Appeal filed in G.R. No. 256455 are GRANTED; the CA Decision dated May 28, 2020 and Resolution dated October 2, 2020 are REVERSED; and Sanawiya Apaso Calombang y Manua, Jamiey Sarif y Balo, Khadafi Aloyodany Macauco, and Ryan Abdul Maliky Tarantanto are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court directed the Bureau of Corrections to immediately release the four accused unless held for another lawful cause, and directed the RTC to turn over the seized sachets to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction.
By the Numbers
- Total shabu seized: 1,939.0 grams (1,008.4 g and 930.6 g in two sachets)
- Buy-bust money: PHP 3,000,000.00 in boodle money, each bundle topped with one genuine PHP 1,000.00 bill
- Date of buy-bust: March 3, 2016
- Inventory conducted: approximately 7:30 p.m., March 3, 2016
- Team arrived at PDEA Regional Office: 11:45 p.m., March 3, 2016
- Laboratory examination request submitted: around 1:00 a.m., March 4, 2016
- RTC conviction: July 24, 2018
- CA affirmance: May 28, 2020
The Court's Reasoning
The Court found multiple unjustified breaks in the chain of custody. First, the marking and inventory of the seized drugs were not conducted immediately after seizure. The required witnesses — an elected public official, a representative of the National Prosecution Service, and a media representative — were present only at the inventory conducted at around 7:30 p.m., not at the moment of arrest. The Court held that this belated presence of insulating witnesses, coupled with the unexplained delay in marking, cast serious doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
Second, the prosecution offered no explanation for the gap between the team's arrival at the PDEA office at 11:45 p.m. and the submission of the laboratory request at 1:00 a.m. the following day. The records were silent as to who had custody of the seized items during that period and how their integrity was preserved.
Third, the forensic chemist, P/Insp. Harry John Gonzales, admitted that after completing his examination, the seized items were initially placed in his personal steel cabinet and later transferred to a filing cabinet in the evidence room where they were commingled with other items. The Court found that such handling defeated the purpose of the chain of custody rule, which is to ensure that evidence is insulated from tampering, substitution, or contamination at every stage of its movement. The Court held that these lapses could not be cured by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 254854 and 256455, Decision penned by Associate Justice Singh, Third Division.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.