People v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 14, 2004, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Unit of Sta. Cruz, Manila, based on information received from an informant regarding the drug trafficking activities of Larry and the accused-appellants, Rashamia Hernandez y Santos and Grace Katipunan y Cruz. Police Officer 2 (PO2) Gloybell Dimacali acted as the poseur-buyer, with PO2 Joenardine Carandang and others as back-up. PO2 Dimacali was given marked buy-bust money. Upon arrival at the target location, PO2 Dimacali and the informant entered the house. PO2 Dimacali approached the accused-appellants and expressed his intent to buy PHP 200.00 worth of shabu. Appellant Katipunan instructed appellant Hernandez to give her the sachet. Hernandez produced a sachet of shabu, which Katipunan handed to PO2 Dimacali. PO2 Dimacali paid the buy-bust money to Katipunan, who then gave it to Hernandez. PO2 Dimacali gave the pre-arranged signal, and upon identifying himself as a police officer, Hernandez fled but was apprehended by the back-up team, who recovered the buy-bust money from her. The sachet of shabu was recovered from PO2 Dimacali. The seized items were brought to the police station, where the sachet was marked and submitted for laboratory examination. The examination confirmed the substance to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), weighing 0.047 gram. Procedural History: The accused-appellants were charged with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. They pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, Manila, found them guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 500,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The accused-appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellants assigned errors concerning the failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the prohibited drug (corpus delicti) and to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug constituting the corpus delicti. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the buy-bust team complied with the procedure in the custody of seized/confiscated dangerous drugs as provided under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants for illegal sale of shabu. The penalty imposed was life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 500,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to establish the identity of the prohibited drug (corpus delicti): The Court found that the prosecution successfully established the elements of illegal sale of shabu, which include the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment thereof. PO2 Dimacali, the poseur-buyer, positively identified the accused-appellants and provided a clear account of the transaction. The sachet of shabu was presented in court, and its identity was confirmed by the chemistry report from PNP Forensic Chemist Judycel A. Macapagal, which stated it contained 0.047 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. PO2 Dimacali also identified the marking "GKC" on the sachet, which he placed himself. The chain of custody was shown to be unbroken, from confiscation to marking, submission for laboratory examination, and presentation in court. The defense failed to present convincing proof that the evidence was tampered with, thus preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. On the failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, PO2 Dimacali and PO2 Carandang, to be credible and consistent with the documentary and object evidence. Both lower courts also found no ill motive on the part of the police officers. The defense of denial and frame-up, which the appellants interposed, is generally viewed with disfavor by the Court as it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy. To prosper, this defense must be proven with strong and convincing evidence, which the appellants failed to provide. Their self-serving assertions were not bolstered by any plausible proof. Furthermore, their failure to file any complaint for frame-up or extortion against the arresting officers weakened their claim. The testimonies of the defense witnesses, Victoria and Marileth, referred only to peripheral matters and not to the actual buy-bust transaction, lacking personal knowledge of the events. On compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165: The Court noted that the appellants raised the issue of non-compliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal, which is generally not allowed. Even if considered, the Court reiterated that non-compliance with Section 21 is not always fatal and does not automatically render the arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. In this case, the chain of custody was established as unbroken. PO2 Dimacali marked the sachet at the police station and turned it over to Inspector Tiu, who then forwarded it for laboratory examination. The marking "GKC" was consistent with the chemistry report. The Court also clarified that not all persons who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify, as long as the chain of custody is established and the drugs are properly identified. The Court also found no merit in the claim that the buy-bust operation and money were not recorded in the police blotter, noting that the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet served as proof of the operation, and the recording of buy-bust money in the blotter is not a legal requirement.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution established the elements of illegal sale of shabu through credible testimonial and documentary evidence. Non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is not fatal if the integrity of the seized drug is preserved and the chain of custody is unbroken. The defense of denial and frame-up, being common and easily concocted, must be proven with strong and convincing evidence, which was not met by the appellants.