Poseur Buyer

(a) The first link in the chain of custody First link: Marking of the Drugs Recovered from the
Accused by the Apprehending Officer

Specifics on how the seized shabu was handled immediately after the
accused-appellants arrest.
person/s who had custody and possession of the shabu after its seizure, nor
that he retained possession of the shabu from the place of the arrest until
they reached the police station.
state the time and place as well as the identity of the person/s who made the
markings
failed to immediately conduct an inventory
doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared the Inventory of Property Seized
conflicting claims on whether the seized items were photographed in the presence of the
accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ,
and any elected public official.

(b) The second link in the chain of custody Second Link: Turnover of the Seized Drugs by
the Apprehending Officer to the Investigating Officer

post-arrest police investigation failed to provide particulars on whether

the shabu was turned over to the investigator.
a big gap exists on who had custody and possession of the shabu prior to,
during and immediately after the police investigation, and how the shabu
was stored, preserved, labeled and recorded from the time of its seizure up to
its receipt by the forensic laboratory

(c) The third link in the chain of custody Third Link: Turnover by the Investigating Officer of
the Illegal Drugs to the Forensic Chemist
 letter-request and the Physical Science Report were sent to the forensic
laboratory with markings and signatures
person who personally brought the seized shabu to the PNP Crime
Laboratory. They also fail to clearly identify the person who received
the shabu at the forensic laboratory pursuant to the letter-request and who
exercised custody and possession of the shabu after it was examined and
before it was presented in court.
how the seized shabu was handled, stored and safeguarded pending its
presentation in court.

(d) The fourth link in the chain of custody Fourth Link: Turnover of the Marked Illegal Drug
Seized by the Forensic Chemist to the Court.

On cross-examination, PO1 Collado simply replied:

Q: You testified that the item you confiscated from the accused
was turned over to the investigator, did you happen to know
what is that item?
A: I gave it to the investigator and the document the specimen were
given to the crime lab

Q: After you arrested Ramil Dahil,did you conduct the inventory of the alleged seized items?

A: Yes, sir (sic).

Q: Where did you conduct the inventory?

A: In our office, ma’am

Q: Were pictures taken on the alleged seized items together with Ramil Dahil?

A: No, ma’am.

Q: After you conducted the alleged buy-bust operation, did you conduct an inventory of the
alleged seized items?

A: Yes, ma’am.

Q: Were the accused assisted by counsel at the time you conduct the inventory?
A: No, ma’am.

Q: Were pictures taken on them including the alleged seized items?

A: Pictures were taken on the accused, ma’am.

ATTY. LOYOLA:
Being an operative, you are of course, trained in intelligence work?

PO2 IBASCO:
Yes, sir.

Q: You said you conducted surveillance but you cannot show any proof
that there is an intelligence report, you have no proof?
A: Yes, sir. There is, we were dispatched.

Q: Where is your proof now?

A: Its in our office.

Q: Your dispatch order for the surveillance do you have any?

A: I dont have it now sir but its in the office.

Q: You said that you conducted surveillance for one week, did I hear you
right?
A: Yes, sir.

xxxx

Q: So, you are saying you did not actually see him selling drugs at that
time during the surveillance?
A: We saw him, sir.

xxxx

Q: None. You did not even coordinate this operation with the PDEA?
A: We coordinated it, sir.

Q: What is your proof that you indeed coordinated?

A: Its in the office, sir.

ATTY. LOYOLA:
May I make a reservation for continuance of the cross-examination
considering that there are documents that the witness has to
present.

COURT:
What documents?

ATTY. LOYOLA:
The proof your Honor that there was indeed a coordination and the
intelligence report.

COURT:
Will you be able to produce those documents?
A: Yes, sir. Titingnan ko po.

PROSECUTOR ANTERO:
Titingnan?

COURT:
You are not sure? You dont have any copy of those documents?

A: You Honor, what we have in the office is the dispatch.[23]

PO1 Valencia, likewise, on cross-examination testified:

ATTY. LOYOLA:
Mr. Witness, tell me during the orientation, you will agree with me that
there was no coordination made to the PDEA regarding this
intended buy bust operation?

PO1 VALENCIA:
We have coordinated at the PDEA.

Q: You say that but you have no proof to show us that there was
coordination?
A: We have, sir.

Q: What is your proof?

A: We have files in our office for coordination.
Q: Are you sure about that?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, Mr. Witness, based on the information, you already planned to

conduct a buy bust operation against the accused?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: But you will agree with me that there was no surveillance against the
accused?
A: We have conducted a surveillance one week before the operation and
we conducted surveillance Pinakawalan namin ang informant.

Q: What do you mean pinakawalan ang informant?

A: So that we have a spy inside to verify whether Garry was really
selling shabu.

xxxx

Q: In fact you dont have any information report?

A: We have, sir. Its in the office. Its with Insp. Villanueva.

Q: And because you claim that you have submitted an information and
report, of course, you should have come up with an intelligence
report.
A: Yes, sir. Its also in the office of Insp. Villanueva.

xxxx

Q: And the alleged recovered item, the plastic sachet which contained
white crystalline substance was brought by whom to the PNP
Crime Laboratory?
A: I cannot remember who brought it sir because it was a long time
ago.[24]

ATTY. BARTOLOME:
Mr. Witness, who asked you to testify today?

BUENCAMINO:
I volunteered myself to testify.
Q. Who was in possession of that sachet of shabu?
A. When they approached the accused, I saw the accused taking the sachet
of shabu from his pocket and putting it on his hand and I did not see what
had happened already.

Q. You did not see who received the sachet of shabu coming from the
suspect?
A. I was able to take of that but it was really Gundol who bought that shabu
from him.

Q. And who recovered the marked money from the accused?

A. It was Gundol also.

Q. So, it was PO1 Gundol who was in possession of this marked money and
one (1) sachet of shabu from the time the suspect was arrested, is it not?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did you do with that marked money [or] that alleged shabu
being confiscated from the accused?
A. We turned it over to our team leader.

Q. Are you referring to SPO2 Caonero?

A. Yes, sir.[29]

Q: YOU SAID ON May 19, 2005 in the afternoon, you and certain
BSDO Elmer received information from confidential
informant that Garet is selling shabu, mr. witness?
A: Yes sir.

Q: You and Elmer proceeded to the place where that confidential

informant was telling this Garet is selling shabu, mr. witness?
A: Yes sir.

Q: With no other companion, no police officer, you conducted the

buy bust operation, mr. witness?
A: Yes sir.
xxx

Q: When you decided, you and Elmer decided to conduct the buy
bust operation, what preparation did you made, mr.
witness?
 A: We have a briefing sir.

Q: Can you tell us what the briefing all about between you and
Elmer, mr. witness?
A: Ako ang bibili at siya ang huhuli po

Q: You identified the buy bust money because of the initial GB, am
I correct to say that, Mr. witness?
A: I could not recall if it is RC or G[V] sir.

Q: Why cant you remember, RC or G[V], what is the relation, Mr.

witness?
A: RC refers to Ronnie Catubay sir.

Q: G[V]?
A: I dont know what it means sir.

Verily, the records of the case do not provide for the identity of the officer
who placed the marking RC GVS 5-19-05 on the plastic sachet containing the
allegedly confiscated shabu and whether said marking had been done in the
presence of Salcena.

Q: When you arrested the suspect in this case, you confiscated two (2)
items from him?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And you said that it is part of your procedure when you confiscated
items from the suspect you made an inventory of the item
confiscated?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Did you make inventory of the confiscated items?

A: Yes sir it is with the police investigator.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: When you arrived at the place, by the way, where was
your target area, Mr. Witness?

A: Cagayan De Oro Street, Barangay Maharlika, Taguig City.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: When you were there, you did not buy [sic] anybody to
buy shabu from the accused?

A: No, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: So, you did not conduct any test buy?

A: No, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Nor did you make any inquiry with Cagayan De Oro
Street regarding the accused?

A: Not anymore, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: At that moment, you dont have any idea regarding the
identity of the accused and also whether he was
engaged in illegal activity?

A: Regarding the identity, he was described by the informant.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: It was only the informant who knows the accused?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And also your other members, they did not know the
accused?
A: Yes, sir

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And this information regarding the accused was relayed
to you by your immediate superior?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And this information was the first information

regarding the accused, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: What was told you was that your target person was alias
Sam?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: No photographs of alias Sam was shown to you?

A: None, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: You have no derogatory records of this alias Sam in

your office?
A: None, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: You have no warrant of arrest?

A: None, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: This alias Sam was not included in your watch list?

A: No, sir.[25]

xxxxxxxxx

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: So, the markings were placed on the plastic sachets?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: After that Mr. Witness, you brought the accused
together with the items to your office?

PROSEC. SANTOS: Already answered, Your Honor. We are just repeating the
same pattern, Your Honor.

xxxxxxxxx

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you investigated the accused?

A: No more, it was PO1 Saez who investigated the accused.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: So, you did not ask the full name of the accused?

A: It was PO1 Saez who investigated him, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: It was PO1 Saez who got his full name and on
you [sic] part, that was the first time that you
were able to learned [sic] the full name of the
accused?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Because you knew him only as alias Sam?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: How about Officer Gasid, it was also the first time
that he learned the full name of the accused?

A: Maybe not, sir.

 ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you mentioned that it was Officer Saez who
delivered the items to the crime lab?

A: No sir, it was Gasid.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: But you were not with him when he delivered the
specimen to the crime laboratory?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. HERNANDEZ: No further question, Your Honor.

PROSEC. SANTOS: No re-direct, Your Honor

Forensic Expert

On cross-examination by the defense, Forensic Analyst Jabonillo stated that the

drugs presented in court were the same drugs examined by him and submitted to
him on 25 August 2002:

ATTY. QUILAS:
In this particular case, you received three plastic sachets?

WITNESS:

Yes sir.

ATTY. QUILAS:
When you receive these three plastic sachets were these already
segregated or in one plastic container?

WITNESS:

I received it as is sir.

xxxx

ATTY. QUILAS:
How sure you were (sic) that three plastic sachet (sic) containing
methylamphetamine hydrochloride were the same drug (sic) submitted to
you on August 25, 2002.

WITNESS:
 I personally place (sic) my marking sir.

ATTY. QUILAS:

You want to impress before this Honorable Court these were the
same items that you received on August 25, 2002?

WITNESS:

Yes sir.[22]

On cross-examination by the defense, the same witness testified, to wit:

ATTY. DE GUZMAN:

I understand you are Chemical Engineer, am I correct?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. DE GUZMAN:

And that you have been (sic) worked as a Chemist in the PNP for several
years?

WITNESS:

Since March, 200 (sic), sir.

ATTY. DE GUZMAN:

What would be your practice when specimen submitted for you to

examine, was it already pre-marked by the person who submit for
examination?

WITNESS:
Normally, sir.

ATTY. DE GUZMAN:

What do you mean normally, you also put the marking?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. DE GUZMAN:

So everything has pre-mark?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. DE GUZMAN:

And then when pre-mark specimen is submitted to you, you merely

analyze the same is that correct?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. DE GUZMAN:

And you do not change any marking there?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. DE GUZMAN:

Now in the marking that we have it appearing that Exhibits A, B, and C

are PH, am I correct?
 WITNESS:

RH sir, not PH.

ATTY. DE GUZMAN:

Because it shows in the zerox (sic) copy that it is RH because of that

slant. Now when this specimen was submitted to you was it three
specimens submitted to you or only one specimen A, B, C were ranking
to one?

WITNESS:

No sir, three (3) specimens