People v. Presas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Based on an informant's tip regarding the illegal sale of drugs by an alias Beng, identified as appellant Bertha Presas y Tolentino, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Barangay Pinagkaisahan, Makati City. MADAC operative Gerardo Fariñas acted as the poseur-buyer, with PO2 Rodrigo Igno as team leader. Fariñas, accompanied by the informant, met appellant. After the informant vouched for Fariñas, Fariñas gave appellant ₱200.00, which appellant placed in her right pocket. Appellant then retrieved a plastic sachet from her left pocket and handed it to Fariñas. Fariñas gave the pre-arranged signal, and appellant was arrested by PO2 Igno and PO2 Tolentino. Upon being asked to empty her pockets, the buy-bust money and another plastic sachet were recovered. The sachet bought by Fariñas was marked with appellant's initials "PBT" at the crime scene. The sachets were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which confirmed they contained Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). Procedural History: Two Informations were filed against appellant: one for illegal sale of shabu (Criminal Case No. 03-2795) and another for illegal possession of shabu (Criminal Case No. 03-2796). Appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. During pre-trial, several facts were stipulated, including the investigation by PO1 Alex Inopia, the request for laboratory examination, the receipt of specimens by the PNP Crime Laboratory, the examination conducted by Forensic Chemist Police Inspector Abraham Verde Tecson, the positive result for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, and the qualification of the Forensic Chemist. Consequently, the testimony of the Forensic Chemist was dispensed with. In a joint trial, the RTC found appellant guilty of illegal sale of shabu and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. She was acquitted of illegal possession due to insufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Appellant argued that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, challenging the credibility of prosecution witnesses due to alleged contradicting statements regarding surveillance, the non-presentation of the forensic chemist, and the failure to observe regulations on the chain of custody of seized drugs, specifically the absence of a physical inventory and photographs of the confiscated drugs.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of illegal sale of shabu. Whether the non-presentation of the forensic chemist is fatal to the prosecution's case. Whether the failure to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused and other required witnesses renders the seizure and custody void.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of appellant Bertha Presas y Tolentino for illegal sale of shabu. The Court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime and that the procedural lapses in the chain of custody did not impair the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of proof for illegal sale of shabu: The Court reiterated that the elements of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 are the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. In this case, these elements were duly established through the positive testimony of the poseur-buyer, MADAC operative Gerardo Fariñas, who identified the appellant as the seller. His testimony was corroborated by PO2 Rodrigo Igno in the Joint Affidavit of Arrest. The Chemistry Report confirming the positive result for shabu further solidified the prosecution's case. The Court found that the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu during a buy-bust operation. On the non-presentation of the forensic chemist: The Court held that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist was not fatal to the prosecution's case, especially since the appellant, through her counsel, agreed to dispense with the chemist's testimony during the pre-trial conference. This stipulation was considered a judicial admission. Even without the stipulation, the Court noted that the Chemistry Report itself, being an official record prepared in the performance of official duty, enjoys the presumption of regularity and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases is the drug itself, and its identity was established by the positive laboratory examination. On the procedural lapses in the chain of custody: The Court acknowledged the failure of the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused and other required witnesses, as mandated by Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. However, the Court emphasized the proviso in the implementing rules stating that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, shall not render the seizure and custody void. In this case, the Court found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. The sachet was marked with the appellant's initials "PBT" at the crime scene in her presence, and it was subsequently tested by the PNP Crime Laboratory. The chain of custody was not broken, and the recovery and handling of the drugs were satisfactorily established.
Main Doctrine
The failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirements for the custody and disposition of seized drugs under Section 21 of RA 9165 does not automatically render the seizure and custody void, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.