Case 6 The prosecution failed to establish Guzon’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt

PP, plaintiff-appelle vs Garyzaldy Guzon, accused-appellant because they failed to adhere to the guidelines in the custody and control of
confiscated drugs. (Sec 21 of RA 9165)
RTC Laoag City
As Guzon correctly pointed out in his Supplemental Brief, there were several
Appeal on decision of CA affirming RTC’s decision finding Guzon guilty beyond lapses in the law enforcers’ handling of the seized item which, when taken
reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu collectively, render the standards of chain of custody seriously breached.

FACTS First, the police officers who took part in the buy-bust operation failed to
mark the seized item immediately after its confiscation from Guzon. Instead
 On November 22, 2005, Guzon sold 1 heat-sealed plastic sachet of immediately marking the subject drug upon its confiscation, PO2 Tuzon
methamphetamine (weighing 0.06g) hydrochloride/ “shabu” to a marked it with his initials "EAT" only upon arrival at the police station.50 While
police asset who posed as buyer in a buy-bust operation the failure of arresting officers to mark the seized items at the place of arrest
 Prosecution’s version: does not, by itself, impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the
 PO2 Elyzer Tuzon received a call from tipper that Guzon was confiscated items inadmissible in evidence,51 such circumstance, when taken
engaging in drug-pushing activity at Nalupta Street in light of the several other lapses in the chain of custody that attend the
 After verifying his location, OIC Baldeo instructed the police present case, forms part of a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the
to plan a buy-bust operation
safeguards that are drawn by the law,52 sufficient to create reasonable doubt
 During the buy-bust operation, the poser-buyer handed
as to the culpability of the accused.
three marked P100 bills and Guzon handed in exchange the
shabu, he was arrested by PO2 Tuzon and bought to San The Court has determined that although a physical inventory of the items
Nicolas Police Station where he marked the seized sachet seized during the buy-bust operation forms part of the case records, the buy-
with “EAT” (his initials) bust team failed to fully comply with the requirements under Section 21 of
 RTC convicted Guzon as guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged R.A. No. 9165 for its preparation and execution. Under the law, the inventory
of illegal sale of shabu
must be made "in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
 Guzon appealed the decision to CA
the items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
 CA denied the appeal and affirmed RTC’s decision
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice,
 Guzon issued appeal on decision of CA, seeking his acquittal on the
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of
basis of the prosecution’s failure to establish chain of custody
the inventory and be given a copy thereof." These requirements are
ISSUE reiterated in Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165. Non-compliant with such rules,
however, the Certification/Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Items53in this
Whether the CA erred in convicting accused as guilty beyond reasonable case only bears the signatures of PO3 Manuel and PO2 Tuzon as
doubt of the crime illegal sale of shabu. apprehending officers. Although the Certification indicates the name of
Guzon under the section "With Conformity", it includes neither his signature
RULING nor of any other person who is allowed by law to witness the required
inventory. There is also no proof that a copy of the inventory was received by
Yes. any of the persons enumerated under the law.
Besides these deficiencies in the preparation of the inventory, no photograph
of the seized item, which is also required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165,
forms part of the case records.

As further proof that the chain of custody rule was breached in this case, the
Court points out the discrepancy in the weight of the item that was
supposedly seized following the buy-bust operation, and that examined by
PSI Cayabyab.

In addition to the foregoing, the Court finds merit in Guzon’s argument that
the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer to the witness stand was fatal to
the prosecution’s cause. We emphasize that in a prosecution for illegal sale
of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must convincingly prove that the
transaction or sale actually transpired.71 In the instant case, the poseur-buyer
in the buy-bust operation, a civilian, was the witness competent to prove such
fact, given the testimony of PO2 Tuzon that at time the supposed sale
happened, he and PO3 Manuel were positioned about 20 meters away from
Guzon and the poseur-buyer. Although PO2 Tuzon testified during the trial
on the supposed sale, such information he could offer was based only on
conjecture, as may be derived from the supposed actions of Guzon and the
poseur-buyer, or at most, hearsay, being information that was merely relayed
to him by the alleged poseur-buyer. Given the 20-meter distance, it was
unlikely for PO2 Tuzon to have heard the conversations between the alleged
buyer and seller. True enough, his testimony provided that he and PO3
Manuel merely relied on an agreed signal, i.e., the poseur-buyer’s removal of
his cap, to indicate that the sale had been consummated.

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated June
29, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02890, which
affirmed the Decision dated June 15, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of
Laoag City, Branch 13, in Criminal Case No. 11968-13; and ACQUITS accused-
appellant GARYZALDY GUZON of the crime charged in Criminal Case No.
11968-13 on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is hereby ORDERED to immediately release Garyzaldy Guzon
from custody, unless he is detained for some other lawful cause.