PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MYRNA GAYOSO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MYRNA GAYOSO Y ARGUELLES

G.R. No. 206590        March 27, 2017

 

DEL CASTILLO, J.

 

FACTS:

Based on the testimonies of SPO3 Victorino de Dios, SPO3 Rolando G. Salamida, PO2 Rex Isip, SPO4 Josefina Bandoy, P/Insp. Eleazar Barber, Jr., PS/Insp. Benjamin Cruto, and the documentary exhibits, the following facts emerged: PI Barber of the PNP 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.

 

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 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 RTC, in finding the appellant guilty, 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 CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling finding appellant guilty of unauthorized sale and possession of shabu. 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.

 

ISSUE:

1.      Whether a confirmatory test-buy solicitation constitutes instigation.

2.      Whether the chain of custody was established.

 

RULING:

1.      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.

 

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. 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.

 

2.      No. 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 tor laboratory examination and then presented in court.

 

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 RA 9165.

 

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.