People v. Pambid
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 18, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted by a team from the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID), Novaliches, Quezon City, based on information received from a confidential informant regarding the illegal drug activities of an alias "Jack" and "Junior Laurel." The team proceeded to J.P. Laurel St., T.S. Cruz Subdivision, Barangay San Agustin, Novaliches, Quezon City. PO2 Michael Collado, posing as a buyer, was introduced to "Jack," later identified as accused-appellant Jacquiline Pambid y Cortez, who was standing at the door of her house. The informant told Pambid that PO2 Collado needed "panggamit" worth PhP 200.00. Pambid then gave PO2 Collado a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, and PO2 Collado gave her the PhP 200.00. After Pambid received the money, PO2 Collado executed the pre-arranged signal. PO2 Collado introduced himself as a policeman, recovered another plastic sachet from Pambid's left hand, and arrested her. They brought her to the station, where PO2 Collado turned over the money and the sachets to the investigator, PO1 Estrelles. A request for laboratory examination was prepared, and the sachets were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory. P/Insp. Banac, Jr. issued Chemistry Report No. D-1007-03, which confirmed that the specimens (0.14 gram and 0.08 gram) were positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82 in Quezon City, found accused Jacquiline Pambid y Cortez guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in its Decision dated February 19, 2008. The RTC sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for illegal sale, and an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and a fine of P300,000.00 for illegal possession. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision in its Decision dated November 27, 2009. Accused-appellant Pambid appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in admitting the seized dangerous drugs due to non-compliance with the requirements for proper custody under RA 9165, specifically the lack of proper inventory and a break in the chain of custody. She also contended that the police officers failed to read her constitutional rights to her.
Issue(s)
Whether the non-compliance with the procedural requirements for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs under RA 9165 renders the seizure and custody void and invalid. Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. Whether the testimony of a lone prosecution witness is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Whether all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were sufficiently established.
Ruling
The appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the RTC Decision finding accused-appellant Jacquiline Pambid y Cortez guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of non-compliance with procedural requirements for custody and disposition of seized drugs: The Court reiterated that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) is not fatal as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The law itself provides exceptions under justifiable grounds. In this case, the chain of custody was established through the marking of the sachets with the initials "MBC" by PO2 Collado, the request for laboratory examination signed by C/Supt. Wong, the receipt by the PNP Crime Laboratory, the confirmation in Chemistry Report No. D-1007-03, and the offering of the marked items as evidence. Therefore, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, and the chain of custody remained unbroken. On the sufficiency of the testimony of a lone prosecution witness: The Court affirmed the well-settled rule that the testimony of a single prosecution witness, if positive, clear, and without improper motive, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. PO2 Collado's testimony clearly narrated the buy-bust operation and the subsequent arrest of the accused-appellant. The defense failed to prove any ill motive on the part of PO2 Collado or the other police officers to falsely impute the crime. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevailed. On the establishment of the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: The Court found that all elements were sufficiently established. These include the identity of the buyer (PO2 Collado) and seller (accused-appellant), the object of the sale (methylamphetamine hydrochloride), the consideration (PhP 200.00), the delivery of the drug, and the payment. The testimony of PO2 Collado clearly showed the actual exchange of the marked money and the contraband, consummating the buy-bust transaction. On the establishment of the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs: The Court also found that the elements of illegal possession were established. These are: (1) possession of a prohibited drug, (2) lack of legal authorization for such possession, and (3) conscious and free possession. PO2 Collado's testimony indicated that the accused-appellant was caught in actual possession of the prohibited drug without any proof of authorization. The finding of the drug in her possession, without a satisfactory explanation, constitutes prima facie evidence of animus possidendi (intent to possess), which the accused-appellant failed to rebut.
Main Doctrine
Non-compliance with the procedural requirements for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs under Section 21 of RA 9165 does not render the seizure and custody void and invalid, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. The testimony of a lone prosecution witness, if positive and clear, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.