G.R. No. 181747 . September 26, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus NARCISO AGULAY y LOPEZ, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On August 24, 2002, based on a tip from an informant, a police team from Station 5 conducted a buy-bust operation in Brgy. Sta. Lucia, Novaliches, Quezon City, targeting a certain “Sing.” PO2 Raul Herrera acted as the poseur-buyer, using a marked P100 bill. Upon meeting the accused-appellant Narciso Agulay (“Sing”), PO2 Herrera handed the marked money in exchange for a plastic sachet. After the transaction, PO2 Herrera gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to Agulay’s arrest. A body search allegedly yielded two more plastic sachets from Agulay’s pocket, and the marked money was recovered. The three sachets, containing white crystalline substance, were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which confirmed the contents to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Consequently, Agulay was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 .
The defense presented a starkly different account. Accused-appellant Agulay testified that around 8:30-9:00 PM, while manning his store, armed men in civilian clothes suddenly arrested him without explanation, despite his request to be brought to the barangay hall or to see a warrant. He was brought to the police station, where he was allegedly punched, shown a plastic sachet, and later demanded P50,000 to avoid a case. His brother, Benjamin Agulay, corroborated the sudden arrest. Crucially, a defense witness, Bayani de Leon—who identified himself as a police asset—testified that he was with the arresting team that night for a follow-up operation on a holdup incident, not a buy-bust. He stated that Agulay was arrested on suspicion of involvement in that holdup, and he only learned later that Agulay was charged with a drug offense.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Narciso Agulay for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Narciso Agulay on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. It is imperative to prove that the substance presented in court as evidence is the very same item seized from the accused. This chain of custody rule ensures the integrity of the evidence from seizure to presentation in court.
The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. There was a significant gap in the evidence regarding the handling of the seized drugs immediately after arrest. The testimony of PO2 Herrera did not detail who had actual possession of the sachets from the moment of seizure at the scene until their turnover to the investigating officer or the crime laboratory. No evidence was presented on how the items were preserved, who safeguarded them, or how they were transported. This lapse creates doubt as to whether the drugs examined were the same ones allegedly taken from Agulay.
Furthermore, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers was successfully overturned by the defense. The credible testimony of police asset Bayani de Leon, who had no apparent motive to falsely testify against his own associates, directly contradicted the prosecution’s narrative of a buy-bust operation. His account that Agulay was arrested for a holdup incident cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of the drug charges. This, coupled with the defense’s claim of frame-up and extortion, eroded the credibility of the police operation. The brother’s testimony, while from a relative, also remained unrebutted on material points. Given the broken chain of custody and the substantial doubt cast on the prosecution’s version of events, the guilt of the accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.