People v. Fundales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 8, 2003, appellant Calexto Duque Fundales, Jr. was charged with violations of Section 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs), Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs), and Section 12 in relation to Section 14 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia) of Article II, Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. The charges stemmed from an alleged buy-bust operation conducted on December 2, 2003, in Parañaque City. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 259, convicted the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. The RTC dismissed the charges for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia for insufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. The appellant elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellant argued that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him beyond reasonable doubt, in giving full weight and credence to the prosecution's evidence, in finding the existence of the buy-bust operation, and in upholding the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the arresting officers.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165. Whether the non-presentation of the forensic chemist is fatal to the prosecution's case. Whether the alleged failure to comply with Sections 21 and 86(a) of RA No. 9165 renders the evidence inadmissible. Whether the police officers failed to coordinate and report the buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
Ruling
The appeal is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of the appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs: The Court held that the prosecution sufficiently discharged its burden of proof. The elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established: (1) the identity of the buyer (PO1 Soquiña) and seller (appellant), the object (five sachets of shabu), and the consideration (₱500.00 marked money); and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. PO1 Soquiña caught the appellant in flagrante delicto selling and delivering the prohibited substance during a buy-bust operation and personally handed the marked money as payment. On the existence of the buy-bust operation and the defense of denial: The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by police officers. PO1 Soquiña's testimony was straightforward and he positively identified the appellant as the seller. The appellant's defense of being at home fixing a washing machine was a bare denial, unsubstantiated by any credible evidence, and thus could not overcome the positive testimonies of the law enforcement officers. On the non-presentation of the forensic chemist: The Court reiterated its ruling in previous cases that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist is an insufficient cause for acquittal. The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases is the dangerous drug itself, and its identity can be proven by the forensic chemist's report, which enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation. Furthermore, the parties had stipulated during trial regarding the probative value of the laboratory report and that Forensic Chemical Officer Mangalip conducted the examination, thus waiving the need for his testimony. On the alleged failure to comply with Sections 21 and 86(a) of RA No. 9165: The Court ruled that the failure of law enforcers to strictly comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved and if the issue was not raised during trial. The appellant did not question the safekeeping of the items during the trial, raising the issue for the first time on appeal, which is not allowed. Slight infractions or nominal deviations from the prescribed method of handling the corpus delicti should not exculpate an otherwise guilty defendant. On the alleged failure to coordinate with PDEA: The Court clarified that RA 9165 designates PDEA as the lead agency but does not make an arrest in drug cases illegal if made without PDEA's participation. The implementing rules state that other law enforcement agencies shall conduct anti-drug operations in support of PDEA. The Court found no reason to render the arrest illegal and the evidence inadmissible, as the integrity of the seized substances was preserved and the danger of abuse the provision seeks to prevent was not present.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution sufficiently discharged the burden of establishing the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The non-presentation of the forensic chemist is not fatal to the prosecution's case, as the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases is the dangerous drug itself, and its identity can be proven by the forensic chemist's report, which enjoys the presumption of regularity. Furthermore, the failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved and the issue was not raised during trial.