People v. Marcelino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 18, 2004, a confidential informant reported the illegal drug activities of one alias "Terence" to the PDEA. An entrapment operation was set up at McDonald's restaurant in San Joaquin, Pasig City. PO2 Peter V. Sistemio acted as the poseur-buyer, with SPO1 Arnold Yu as immediate back-up. Alias "Terence" arrived, was introduced to PO2 Sistemio, and agreed to sell shabu. PO2 Sistemio handed over marked money, and alias "Terence" handed over a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.14 gram of white crystalline substance. Upon receiving the money, alias "Terence" was arrested by SPO1 Yu. The sachet was later found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 164 in Pasig City, found accused Teofilo Marcelino, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The RTC imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Php 500,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellant argued that the Court of Appeals erred in giving full credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses due to alleged inconsistencies and in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Whether alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses cast doubt on the guilt of the accused, and whether the chain of custody of the seized drug was properly established.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the appeal, affirming in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found that the prosecution successfully established the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and maintained the integrity of the chain of custody. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Php 500,000.00 imposed by the lower courts was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt: The Court reiterated that for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be proved: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. In this case, these elements were sufficiently proven. PO2 Sistemio, the poseur-buyer, identified the accused as the seller, the sachet of shabu as the object, and the marked money as the consideration. The delivery of the illegal drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummated the buy-bust transaction. The corpus delicti, the sachet containing shabu, was presented in court and found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. On alleged inconsistencies in testimonies and chain of custody: The Court held that minor discrepancies or inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not impair the essential integrity of the evidence. The alleged inconsistencies cited by the accused-appellant, such as the exact number of team members present or the precise movements of the informant, were deemed minor and did not detract from the core facts of the illegal sale. The Court noted that the testimony of P/CInsp. Santos was given months after the operation, making minor recall issues plausible. The crucial fact was the consummation of the sale and the presentation of the illegal drug as evidence, which were established despite these alleged discrepancies. The Court emphasized that the number of team members is not central to the issue of illegal sale of shabu; rather, proof of the transaction and the corpus delicti are material. The Court affirmed that the chain of custody of the seized drug was properly established. PO2 Sistemio marked the sachet with his initials and the date at the PDEA Office, which he explained as standard operating procedure as he did not have a pen during the operation. He then turned it over to the team leader, P/CInsp. Santos. The specimen was personally delivered by P/CInsp. Santos, PO2 Sistemio, and SPO1 Yu to the Crime Laboratory for examination. The parties stipulated that the substance presented in court was the same substance subjected to laboratory examination. This established the unbroken chain from seizure to presentation in court, satisfying the requirements outlined in People v. Kamad.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution must prove the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, namely: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. The chain of custody of the seized drug must also be established.