People v. Balaquit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 11, 2008, appellant Eduardo Balaquiot was arrested during a buy-bust operation conducted by PNP officers in Camiling, Tarlac. He was charged with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. The operation involved PO3 Jay Espiritu as the poseur-buyer and SPO1 Noli Daraman as the back-up. PO3 Espiritu negotiated and purchased one heat-sealed plastic sachet of shabu from the appellant in exchange for a marked ₱500 bill. After the transaction, the appellant was arrested, and the marked bill was recovered. The plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and the marked money were inventoried, photographed, and brought to the Camiling PNP station. The plastic sachet was then dated "11 June 2008" and marked with "JSE-EBB." The following day, it was forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Procedural History: The RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of shabu, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, citing errors in giving full faith and credence to the prosecution's version and arguing that the corpus delicti was not proven due to alleged irregularities in the marking of the seized item. The Petition: The appellant claimed that the RTC and CA erred in giving full faith and credence to the prosecution's version, citing the non-presentation of the CIO, lack of coordination with PDEA, and the unbelievability of the surveillance. He also argued that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti due to the delayed marking of the seized shabu.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC and CA erred in giving full faith and credence to the prosecution's version of events. Whether the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense charged due to alleged irregularities in the marking of the seized item.
Ruling
The appeal is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of the appellant for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged errors in giving credence to the prosecution's version: The Court held that the circumstances cited by the appellant do not destroy the credibility of the prosecution's evidence. The non-presentation of the CIO was deemed immaterial as the buy-bust operation was adequately established by the testimonies of the police officers involved. The lack of coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was also ruled as not a condition sine qua non for the validity of every entrapment operation, citing jurisprudence. Furthermore, the decision of the police to conduct a buy-bust operation instead of applying for a search warrant was a matter addressed to their sound discretion. The Court reiterated that denial alone cannot overcome affirmative testimonies of police officers with unsullied credibility. On the alleged failure to prove the corpus delicti: The Court found that the corpus delicti was adequately proven. An unbroken chain of custody was established from the retrieval of the shabu during the buy-bust operation to its presentation in court. The Court clarified that the failure to mark the seized shabu immediately at the place of arrest, but instead marking it at the nearest police station in the presence of the accused, does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody. Citing previous rulings, the Court explained that "immediate marking" contemplates marking upon confiscation, which can include marking at the nearest police station, provided it is done in the presence of the accused.
Main Doctrine
The failure to immediately mark seized contraband at the place of arrest, but instead marking it at the nearest police station in the presence of the accused, does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody, provided that the marking is done upon immediate confiscation and in the presence of the accused.