People v. De los Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Renato de los Reyes y Solteo was charged with violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act), for allegedly selling 0.02 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) worth P200.00 to Pat. Rodolfo Mercado, who acted as a poseur-buyer. The operation stemmed from a surveillance conducted by the District Anti-Narcotics Division which allegedly produced positive determination of the accused-appellant's illegal activities. A buy-bust operation was then formed, wherein Pat. Mercado, accompanied by an informant, entered the accused-appellant's house. After the transaction, Mercado signaled his companions, leading to the arrest of the accused-appellant. Confiscated items included the marked bills, an improvised burner, aluminum tin foils, a plaster water pipe, and a piece of rag. Laboratory tests confirmed the substance to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. Accused-appellant was also found positive for ultraviolet fluorescent powder on his person. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a fine of P20,000.00, and costs. The confiscated shabu was ordered forfeited. The accused-appellant appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant's appeal was based on the sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in finding him guilty and imposing the penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the failure of the police to annotate surveillance information in the police blotter renders the prosecution's evidence insufficient. Whether the absence of markings on the confiscated shabu before submission to the laboratory is fatal to the prosecution's case. Whether the failure to issue a receipt for confiscated articles is a ground for acquittal. Whether the failure to comply with DDB Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, regarding inventory and photographing of seized drugs, invalidates the prosecution. Whether the failure to present the informant vitiates the prosecution's cause. Whether the failure to present other members of the buy-bust team weakens the prosecution's case. Whether the accused-appellant's defense of frame-up is sufficiently proven.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00 were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the prosecution had sufficiently established the guilt of the accused-appellant. The testimony of the poseur-buyer, Pat. Rodolfo Mercado, was found to be credible, straightforward, and detailed regarding the buy-bust operation and the illegal sale. This testimony was corroborated by the physical evidence, including the confiscated shabu confirmed by laboratory tests and the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder on the accused-appellant's person, indicating he handled the marked money. The Court reiterated that the lone testimony of a credible witness is sufficient to convict in drug cases. On the issue of the police blotter and surveillance information: The Court dismissed the argument that the absence of annotation of surveillance information in the police blotter rendered the prosecution's evidence insufficient. It noted that this matter was not inquired into by the defense during trial, and the police blotter was equally accessible to both parties. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the decision on what evidence to present rests solely with the prosecutor, and the defense cannot dictate the prosecution's choice of witnesses or evidence. On the issue of markings on the confiscated shabu: The Court held that the absence of distinguishing marks on the aluminum foil containing the shabu before it was turned over to the investigator or the PNP Crime Laboratory is a collateral matter. The commission of the crime was consummated when the accused-appellant handed over the shabu to the poseur-buyer, and such detail does not adversely affect the prosecution's case. On the issue of failure to issue a receipt for confiscated articles: The Court distinguished the present case from People vs. del Mar, where the confiscated items were not mentioned in the inventory. In this case, Pat. Mercado positively identified the shabu and listed it in his affidavit. The Court also reiterated that the fiscal has control over the prosecution and the presentation of evidence. On the issue of non-compliance with DDB Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979: The Court ruled that the failure of the arresting police officers to comply with DDB Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, which mandates the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused, is a matter between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the officers. This non-compliance is irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case, as the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is consummated upon establishment of the sale, and the prosecution is not undermined by such procedural lapses. On the issue of failure to present the informant: The Court stated that the testimony of an informant is not indispensable for a successful prosecution in drug cases. His testimony would merely be corroborative to that of the poseur-buyer, who was presented and testified on the facts of the sale. The lone testimony of a credible witness is sufficient. On the issue of failure to present other members of the buy-bust team: The Court reiterated that the testimony of other members of the buy-bust team is not necessary, as the lone testimony of a credible witness suffices to convict in drug cases. The Court found Pat. Mercado's testimony to be credible and corroborated by physical evidence. On the issue of frame-up defense: The Court characterized the charge of frame-up as a usual defense in drug cases, which is easily fabricated. It held that strong and convincing proof is necessary to overcome the trial court's findings, and such proof was wanting in the record. The Court also clarified that the operation was a legitimate entrapment, which is not a bar to prosecution.
Main Doctrine
The failure of police officers to comply with certain procedural regulations, such as annotating surveillance information in the police blotter or photographing the confiscated drugs in the presence of the accused, does not necessarily vitiate the prosecution's case, especially when the corpus delicti is established through the credible testimony of the poseur-buyer and other corroborating evidence, and the accused fails to present strong proof of frame-up.