Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEX BALAGAT 586 SCRA 640 (2009)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEX BALAGAT 586 SCRA 640 (2009)

If there is no certainty that what was submitted and subjected for chemical examination was the specimen obtained from appellant, the latter shall be acquitted. PO1 Erwin Taasin of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit Office (SDEU) of the San Juan Metro Manila Police Station received a report from an informant that someone was selling shabu at Tabing-Ilog Street, Barangay Salapan, San Juan. The informant specifically described the suspect and his clothes. SDEU organized a buy-bust operation composed of Taasin as the poseur buyer, along with PO1 Romeo G. Lañada and PO2 Mario Madarang. Arriving at Tabing-Ilog Street, Taasin immediately spotted appellant Alex Balagat using the description given by his informant. Taasin approached him and said ―Ii-score ako ng piso‖ and handed Balagat One-Hundred (P100) Peso bill previously marked. Balagat took the money and gave a plastic sachet of suspected shabu. Lañada and Madarang apprehended Balagat in his house. They recovered the marked money, and other plastic sachets also suspected as shabu. Taasin immediately turned over the plastic sachet recovered from Balagat to the investigator and marked it ―AMB‖. It was found out that the content of the plastic sachet was positive for shabu. Balagat denied all these allegations. The RTC of Pasig City convicted Balagat and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding Alex Balagat is guilty of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165

HELD:

From a review of the records of the case, the Court entertains nagging doubts on whether the substance allegedly confiscated from Balagat was the same specimen examined and established to be a regulated drug. In other words, there is no certainty that what was submitted and subjected for chemical examination was the specimen obtained from Balagat. By Taasin‘s claim, he turned over the shabu to PO2 Ricardo Cristobal (Cristobal) who marked it with “AMB” and prepared the request for laboratory examination; and the buy-bust team members were the ones who brought the request, together with the specimen, to the laboratory for examination. The records show, however, that the specimen examined by the forensic chemist was delivered by PO3 Arnel Cave (Cave), who does not appear to have been part of the buy-bust team. Cave did not even take the witness stand. The Court finds the prosecution‘s failure to prove the evidence‘s chain of custody to merit Balagat‘s acquittal.