Portuguez v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Manuel R. Portuguez was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 for illegal possession of 0.05 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The prosecution alleged that on April 16, 2003, in Pasig City, a confidential asset reported illegal drug activities of an alias Bobot. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO1 Aldrin R. Mariano as the poseur-buyer. Upon arrival, the asset pointed to Bobot. PO1 Mariano observed Bobot and petitioner transacting illegal drugs. When PO1 Mariano and the asset approached, petitioner looked at PO1 Mariano and attempted to run. PO1 Mariano apprehended petitioner, who was found to be in possession of a sachet of suspected shabu. PO1 Mariano marked the seized item. The intended buy-bust operation failed as Bobot evaded arrest. The seized item was subjected to laboratory examination, which confirmed it to be shabu. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 70, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years imprisonment and a fine of ₱300,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti and the regularity of the chain of custody. He contended that the police officers failed to observe proper procedures, such as physical inventory and photography, thus compromising the integrity of the evidence. He also questioned the validity of the buy-bust operation due to the alleged lack of pre-operation and coordination reports with the PDEA. He argued that the seized drug was inadmissible as a fruit of the poisonous tree.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution established the identity of the corpus delicti and the regularity of the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug. Whether the non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 renders the seized drug inadmissible in evidence. Whether the buy-bust operation was validly conducted and whether petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of illegal drugs. Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was properly applied.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of petitioner Manuel R. Portuguez for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Ratio Decidendi
On the essential elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and the chain of custody and integrity of the evidence: The Court reiterated that the essential elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. In this case, all elements were proven. PO1 Mariano identified petitioner as the one who bought the sachet of shabu from Bobot. Upon apprehension, the sachet was found in petitioner's possession, and laboratory analysis confirmed its contents as shabu. The Court gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers, upholding the presumption of regularity in their performance of official duty, as petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The Court held that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, specifically the lack of physical inventory and photographs, is not fatal as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The chain of custody was established through the marking of the sachet by PO1 Mariano, the request for laboratory examination, the personal delivery of the item by PO1 Sabo to the PNP Crime Laboratory on the same day of the arrest, the confirmation by Chemistry Report No. D-687-03E that the item was shabu, and the identification of the item by PO1 Mariano in court. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, and the chain of custody remained unbroken. On the admissibility of the evidence: The Court reiterated that the procedural lapses in the inventory and photographing of the seized items do not render the evidence inadmissible. The crucial factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. In this case, the Court found that the chain of custody was sufficiently established, thereby preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu seized from petitioner. The Court also noted that petitioner failed to move to quash the information on the ground of illegal arrest, thereby waiving such right by proceeding with the trial. On the validity of the buy-bust operation and petitioner's apprehension: The Court found that while the intended buy-bust operation failed, PO1 Mariano and the asset chanced upon an ongoing transaction between petitioner and Bobot. PO1 Mariano identified petitioner as the buyer of the suspected shabu. Petitioner's attempt to run upon being approached by the police further indicated guilt. The Court rejected the defenses of denial and frame-up, noting that such defenses are easily fabricated and require strong, convincing evidence, which petitioner failed to provide. The Court also deferred to the RTC's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, which was sustained by the CA. On the presumption of regularity: The Court emphasized that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to the testimonies of police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn this presumption, relying instead on bare allegations of denial and frame-up. The Court also noted that petitioner's claim that Bobot was in rehabilitation was not proven.
Main Doctrine
Non-compliance with the procedural requirements for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not render the seizure and custody of the drugs void and invalid, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.