Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People v. Gayoso
People v. Gayoso
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J : p
Contrary to law. 5
During arraignment, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty" in both
cases. Joint trial then ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
Based on the testimonies of SPO3 Victorino de Dios (SPO3 De Dios),
SPO3 Rolando G. Salamida (SPO3 Salamida), PO2 Rex Isip (PO2 Isip), SPO4
Josefina Bandoy (SPO4 Bandoy), P/Insp. Eleazar Barber, Jr. (PI Barber),
PS/Insp. Benjamin Cruto (PSI Cruto), and the documentary exhibits, the
following facts emerged:
PI Barber of the PNP 6 Guiuan Police Station directed SPO3 De Dios to
conduct a surveillance on appellant after receiving several reports that she
was peddling prohibited drugs. Three weeks later, SPO3 De Dios confirmed
that appellant was indeed engaged in illegal drug activities. PI Barber filed
for and was issued a search warrant. However, prior to implementing the
search warrant, PI Barber decided to conduct a "confirmatory test-buy"
designating SPO3 De Dios as poseur-buyer and giving him P200.00 marked
money for the operation.
On March 24, 2004, SPO3 De Dios and a civilian asset proceeded to the
house of appellant and asked her if they could buy shabu . The sale was
consummated when appellant took the marked money from SPO3 De Dios
after giving him a sachet of shabu . SPO3 De Dios immediately informed PI
Barber by text message about the successful "confirmatory test-buy." PI
Barber and his team of police officers who were positioned 100 meters away
rushed towards the house of appellant. He also instructed SPO3 De Dios and
the civilian asset to summon the Barangay Chairman to witness the search
of the house. When he arrived together with a kagawad and a media
representative, SPO3 Salamida read the search warrant to appellant.
During the search of the house, SPO4 Bandoy found a tin foil under the
mattress. SPO3 De Dios took it from SPO4 Bandoy and gave it to SPO3
Salamida who found seven sachets of shabu inside, in addition to the four
sachets of shabu found inside the right pocket of the short pants of
appellant. The search of the house also revealed several drug paraphernalia.
An inventory of seized items was prepared and the same was signed by the
Barangay Chairman, PO2 Isip, SPO4 Bandoy, and appellant. The sachets of
shabu were brought to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) then
to the PNP Crime Laboratory for qualitative examination. The results of the
examination verified that the seized sachets contained shabu .
Version of Appellant
Appellant denied the charges against her. She claimed that on March
24, 2004, somebody forcibly kicked the front door of her house and tried to
break it open. When she opened the door, PI Barber pushed her aside and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
told his companions to move quickly. They went directly to her room; when
PO2 Isip emerged therefrom seconds later, he was holding a substance that
looked like tawas. SPO3 De Dios and SPO3 Salamida went in and out of her
house. She maintained that the search warrant was shown to her only after
an hour and that the sachets of shabu were planted. She argued that the
police officers fabricated the charges against her since her family had a
quarrel with a police officer named Rizalina Cuantero regarding the fence
separating their houses.
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale
and illegal possession of shabu . It declared that the prosecution ably
established the elements of illegal sale and possession of shabu through the
testimonies of its witnesses who arrested appellant after selling a sachet of
the illegal drug in a "test-buy operation" and for possessing 11 sachets of
the same drug in her house after enforcing a search warrant immediately
thereafter. Appellant had no evidence that she had license or authority to
possess the shabu .
The RTC ruled that the evidence sufficiently established the chain of
custody of the sachets of shabu from the time they were bought from
appellant and/or seized from her house, to its turnover to the PDEA and
submission to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The RTC rejected
appellant's defense of denial and frame-up in view of her positive
identification by eyewitnesses as the criminal offender.
The RTC therefore sentenced appellant to life imprisonment and to pay
a fine of P500,000.00 for the illegal sale of shabu . It also sentenced appellant
to suffer the indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day, as
minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as
maximum and a fine of P300,000 for illegal possession of shabu .
From this judgment, appellant appealed to the CA. In her Brief, 7 she
assailed the validity of the search warrant claiming that it was not issued by
the RTC upon determination of probable cause. She argued that the
"confirmatory test-buy" conducted by the poseur buyer and the confidential
asset was not valid since they forced her to engage in a drug sale. She
maintained that the shabu presented during trial was inadmissible in
evidence due to several gaps in its chain of custody.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Brief for the Appellee 8
praying for the affirmance of the appealed Decision. It argued that the
evidence on which the RTC based its determination of probable cause was
sufficient for the issuance of the search warrant. It asserted that the "test-
buy operation" was an entrapment and not an inducement. The OSG
maintained that the shabu confiscated from appellant was admissible in
evidence since the prosecution established the proper chain of custody.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling finding appellant guilty of
unauthorized sale and possession of shabu . The CA ruled that all the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
elements for the sale of shabu were established during the "test-buy
operation". It held that the illegal sale of shabu was proven by SPO3 De Dios
who participated in said operation as the designated poseur buyer. His offer
to buy shabu with marked money and appellant's acceptance by delivering
the illegal drug consummated the offense. The CA likewise declared that the
elements for possession of shabu were present in the case against appellant.
After appellant's arrest for illegal sale of shabu , a valid search resulted in the
discovery of 11 sachets of shabu inside her house, which were under her
possession and control. She did not have legal authority to possess the same
and failed to overcome the presumption that she consciously knew she was
in possession of the illegal drug discovered in her home.
The CA noted that the examination by the trial judge established
probable cause in issuing the search warrant. The deposition of PO3
Salamida shows that he had personal knowledge of appellant's drug
activities, and the same served as basis for the finding of probable cause for
the purpose of issuing a search warrant.
The CA was not swayed by appellant's contention that the "test-buy
operation" amounted to instigation since it is settled jurisprudence that a
"decoy solicitation" is not tantamount to inducement or instigation. The CA
was also unconvinced by appellant's claim that the proof against her was
inadmissible since the prosecution failed to show strict compliance with
Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules on the custody and
disposition of the evidence.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. 9 On July 15, 2013, 10 the Court
notified the parties to file their supplemental briefs. However, appellant
opted not to file a supplemental brief since she had extensively argued her
cause in her appellants' brief. 11 For its part, the OSG manifested that it
would not file a supplemental brief since its appellee's brief filed in the CA
had already discussed and refuted the arguments raised by appellant. 12
Our Ruling
The RTC Issued A Search Warrant After
Finding Probable Cause.
Appellant contends that there was no probable cause for the issuance
of the search warrant. She claims that PI Barber had no personal knowledge
of her alleged drug dealings.
There is no merit in this contention.
Probable cause for a valid search warrant is defined "as such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed, and that objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched." 13 The
probable cause must be "determined personally by the judge, after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized." 14 Probable cause does not mean actual
and positive cause, nor does it import absolute certainty. The determination
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
of the existence of probable cause is concerned only with the question of
whether the affiant has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused
committed or is committing the crime charged. 15 aDSIHc
Here, the records reveal that the trial court issued the search warrant
after deposing two witnesses, namely PI Barber and SPO3 Salamida. In
particular, the deposition of SPO3 Salamida shows that he had personal
knowledge of appellant's drug pushing activities which served as basis for
the finding of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Thus,
whether or not PI Barber had personal knowledge of the illegal drug
activities committed by appellant will not adversely affect the findings of
probable cause for the purpose of issuance of search warrant.
Confirmatory test-buy solicitation does
not constitute instigation.
Appellant argues that the "confirmatory test-buy" by the police officers
was not valid since she was induced by the designated poseur buyer, SPO3
De Dios, and the confidential informant to sell the seized shabu .
There is no merit in this argument.
In inducement or instigation —
the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigator and the
accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order
to prosecute him. The instigator practically induces the would-be
accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a
co-principal. [This is distinguished from entrapment wherein] ways
and means are resorted to for the purpose of capturing the
lawbreaker in flagrante delicto . 16
The "test-buy" operation conducted by the police officers is not
prohibited by law. It does not amount to instigation. As in this case, the
solicitation of drugs from appellant by the poseur buyer merely furnishes
evidence of a course of conduct. 17 The police received an intelligence
report that appellant habitually deals with shabu . They designated a poseur
buyer to confirm the report by engaging in a drug transaction with appellant.
There was no proof that the poseur buyer induced appellant to sell illegal
drugs to him.
Notwithstanding the foregoing disquisition, appellant still deserves an
acquittal as will be discussed below.
The chain of custody of evidence was not
established. ATICcS
Nothing also can be gained from the testimony of the forensic chemist
PSI Cruto. His testimony is not clear and positive since he failed to assert
that the alleged packs of chemical substance presented for laboratory
examination and tested positive for shabu were the very same substance
allegedly recovered from appellant. His testimony was limited to the result of
the examination he conducted and not on the source of the substance.
From the foregoing, it appears that no chain of custody was
established at all. What we have here are individual links with breaks in-
between which could not be seamlessly woven or tied together. The so-
called links in the chain of custody show that the seized shabu was not
handled properly starting from the actual seizure, to its turnover in the
police station and the PDEA, as well as its transfer to the crime laboratory for
examination. The Court therefore cannot conclude with moral certainty that
the shabu confiscated from appellant was the same as that presented for
laboratory examination and then presented in court.
It is indeed desirable that the chain of custody should be perfect and
unbroken. In reality however, this rarely occurs. The legal standard that must
therefore be observed "is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the
guilt or innocence of the accused." 30 Here, the Court finds that the
apprehending officers failed to properly preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu . There are just too many breaks
and gaps to the effect that a chain of custody could not be established at all.
Failure of the prosecution to offer testimony to establish a substantially
complete chain of custody of the shabu and the inappropriate manner of
handling the evidence prior to its offer in court diminishes the government's
chance of successfully prosecuting a drug case. 31
Aside from the failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain
of custody, another procedural lapse casts further uncertainty on the identity
and integrity of the subject shabu . This refers to the non-compliance by the
arresting officers with the most basic procedural safeguards relative to the
custody and disposition of the seized item under Section 21 (1), Article II of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
RA 9165, which reads as follows:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized,
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA
shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial
custody and control of the drug 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.
Corollarily, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
provides as follows:
Section 21 (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial
custody and control of the drug 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, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory
and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizure of and
custody over said items.
In this case, the apprehending team never conducted a physical
inventory of the seized items at the place where the search warrant was
served in the presence of a representative of the Department of Justice, nor
did it photograph the same in the presence of appellant after their initial
custody and control of said drug, and after immediately seizing and
confiscating the same. Neither was an explanation offered for such failure.
While this directive of rigid compliance has been tempered in certain cases,
"such liberality, as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations can be
applied only when the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are
properly preserved." 32 Such an exception does not obtain in this case.
"Serious uncertainty is generated on the identity of the [shabu] in view of
the broken linkages in the chain of custody. [Thus,] the presumption of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
regularity in the performance of official duty accorded to the [apprehending
officers] by the courts below cannot arise." 33
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00744 dated June 23, 2011 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Appellant Myrna Gayoso y Arguelles is hereby ACQUITTED of
the charges, her guilt not having been established beyond reasonable doubt.
The Superintendent for the Correctional Institute for Women is hereby
ORDERED to immediately RELEASE the appellant from custody, unless she
is held for another lawful cause. AIDSTE
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, * J., is on official leave.
Footnotes
* On official leave.
8. Id. at 37-50.
9. Id. at 129.
10. Rollo , p. 18.
11. Id. at 41-42.
12. Id. at 21-24.
13. Dr. Prudente v. Executive Judge Dayrit, 259 Phil. 541, 549 (1989).
14. Id.
15. Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 329 Phil. 875, 919 (1996).
16. People v. Gatong-o , 250 Phil. 710, 711 (1988).