People v. Laba
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 18, 2005, appellant Camalouing Samanoding Laba y Brion was apprehended at the Manila Domestic Airport while attempting to board a flight to Davao City. A frisk search by airport personnel revealed three plastic sachets containing shabu concealed inside his oversized rubber shoes. Upon discovery, appellant allegedly offered money to the arresting officer, stating, "Baka pwedeng pag-usapan ito." He was subsequently apprehended, informed of his rights, and turned over to PDEA agents. The seized sachets, weighing a total of 196.63 grams, tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City convicted appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA found that while the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the photographing requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165, the integrity of the seized substance was preserved, and the chain of custody was properly established. The Petition: Appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that he was framed and that the arresting officers attempted to extort money from him. He denied wearing the shoes where the shabu was found and claimed the police planted the evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for the transportation of dangerous drugs. Whether the RTC and CA committed reversible error in convicting the appellant despite alleged procedural lapses in the chain of custody and evidence handling, including the non-presentation of the forensic chemist.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of the appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The Court found that the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of a substantial amount of dangerous drugs while at the airport, intending to board a flight, which constitutes transportation under the law. The integrity of the seized drugs was deemed preserved, and the procedural lapses did not render the evidence inadmissible.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of transportation of dangerous drugs: The Court held that the appellant was correctly convicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The definition of "transport" under the Dangerous Drugs Act means "to carry or convey from one place to another," with the essential element being the movement of the dangerous drug. The appellant's presence at the airport, intending to board a flight to Davao City with 196.63 grams of shabu concealed in his shoes, clearly indicated his purpose of moving the illegal substance from one place to another. The Court reiterated the congressional intent that possession of more than five grams of shabu implies an intent to traffic or sell, not personal consumption, further supporting the transportation charge. On the chain of custody and evidence handling, and the non-presentation of the forensic chemist: The Court found no reason to disturb the CA's findings regarding the chain of custody. The illegal substance was seized from the appellant, properly marked, subjected to laboratory examination, and presented in court. Although the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the inventory and photographing requirements under Section 21(1) of RA 9165, this lapse did not render the evidence inadmissible because the integrity of the seized substance was duly preserved. The Court emphasized that the corpus delicti was established, and minor procedural deviations do not automatically acquit an accused when the evidence clearly shows guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination was not fatal to the prosecution's case. The matter of witness presentation is within the discretion of the prosecution. Furthermore, the report of an official forensic chemist enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, as provided under Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. The corpus delicti does not solely depend on the testimony of the chemical analyst.
Main Doctrine
The presence of a substantial amount of dangerous drugs in an airport, with the intent to board a flight, constitutes 'transportation' under RA 9165, even if the travel has not yet commenced. The integrity of the seized substance, preserved through proper marking, laboratory examination, and presentation in court, is sufficient to establish the corpus delicti, notwithstanding minor procedural lapses in inventory and photography, and the non-presentation of the forensic chemist.