People v. Torres
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 17, 2007, PO1 Jayson Rivera, a police poseur-buyer, received information about Mylene Torres y Cruz (appellant) selling dangerous drugs in Pasig City. A buy-bust operation was organized. PO1 Rivera, accompanied by a confidential informant, approached appellant at her house. PO1 Rivera stated his intention to buy drugs for use, and appellant responded affirmatively, stating she had some. PO1 Rivera gave appellant ₱200.00, and appellant handed him a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO1 Rivera signaled the consummation of the sale, introduced himself as a police officer, and arrested appellant. PO1 Jeffrey Male, the back-up officer, witnessed the sale and assisted in the arrest, recovering the buy-bust money. PO1 Rivera retained possession of the sachet. The confiscated item was brought to the office, where PO1 Rivera marked it with his initials and scotch tape before turning it over to the investigator. A Request for Laboratory Examination was prepared and submitted with the specimen. The examination by PS/Insp. Carino confirmed the substance to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 154, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. She was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of ₱1,000,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Appellant contended that the police failed to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 regarding the physical inventory and photographing of the seized item, and that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the chain of custody of the seized substance, thus creating reasonable doubt on her culpability.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Whether the non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 renders the seized evidence inadmissible. Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were preserved, thereby establishing an unbroken chain of custody.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of Mylene Torres y Cruz for illegal sale of shabu. The penalties imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were found to be in order.
Ratio Decidendi
On the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: The Court reiterated that the essential elements for illegal sale of dangerous drugs are the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. In this case, PO1 Rivera positively identified appellant as the seller of one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance for ₱200.00. The substance was confirmed by forensic examination to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. PO1 Rivera also identified the sachet in court as the same item sold to him by appellant. Thus, all elements were established beyond moral certainty. On non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165: The Court acknowledged that the police failed to conduct a physical inventory and take photographs of the seized item immediately after confiscation, as mandated by Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165. However, it emphasized that non-compliance with these requirements is not fatal as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 allow for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. The Court found that the prosecution successfully demonstrated that the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug were duly proven to have been properly preserved, with its identity, quantity, and quality remaining untarnished. On the chain of custody: The Court found that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody. After the sale, the seized item remained in PO1 Rivera's possession until they returned to the office. PO1 Rivera marked the sachet with his initials and scotch tape before turning it over to the investigator. A Request for Laboratory Examination was prepared and submitted with the specimen to the crime laboratory, where it was examined and tested positive for shabu. PO1 Rivera positively identified the sachet in court as the same item confiscated from appellant. The Court also noted that appellant raised the issue of non-compliance with Section 21 only on appeal, and failed to challenge the safekeeping or disposition of the seized items during the trial, which is considered fatal to her claim.
Main Doctrine
Non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, particularly the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs, is not fatal as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved, and the issue of non-compliance is timely raised during trial.