People v. Dasigan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 5, 2006, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) received information about an individual known as "Amy" engaged in the sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride ("shabu") in La Trinidad, Benguet. A buy-bust operation was organized. On December 9, 2006, PO2 Arieltino G. Corpuz, acting as the poseur-buyer, met with "Amy" (later identified as Amy Dasigan y Oliva) at the road leading to Bayabas, La Trinidad, Benguet. "Amy" handed over two sachets of "shabu" to PO2 Corpuz, who then apprehended her after announcing his identity as a police officer. A search of "Amy's" person yielded four additional sachets of "shabu". The seized items were taken to the PDEA office for marking and inventory, and subsequently sent for laboratory examination. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, La Trinidad, Benguet, found accused-appellant Amy Dasigan y Oliva guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession and illegal sale of "shabu" under Sections 11(3) and 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165). The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and identity of the seized "shabu" due to non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Petition: The accused-appellant before the Supreme Court reiterated her arguments regarding the alleged failure to preserve the integrity of the seized items and establish an unbroken chain of custody, citing the absence of photographs and the flawed inventory. She also questioned the proof of her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and identity of the seized "shabu" beyond reasonable doubt due to alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Whether the accused-appellant's guilt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering the alleged non-consummation of the sale; and if not, whether the accused-appellant can be convicted for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It affirmed the conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs but acquitted the accused-appellant of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Court imposed a penalty of imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and ordered her to pay a fine of ₱300,000.00 for illegal possession of dangerous or prohibited drugs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the integrity and chain of custody of seized items: The Court held that while strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, including immediate marking and photographing of seized items, is ideal, non-compliance is not fatal if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. In this case, the marking of the sachets with initials (CJA, AGC, BAV) at the PDEA office, immediately after arrest, was deemed compliant, especially given the explanation that the arrest area was notorious and posed a security risk. The unbroken chain of custody was established through the testimonies of the officers who handled the evidence from seizure to laboratory examination, ensuring that the "shabu" presented in court was the same "shabu" confiscated from the accused-appellant. The Court reiterated that the most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, not necessarily a perfect chain of custody. On the conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs and the possibility of conviction for illegal possession: The Court found that the sale was not consummated because the consideration (marked money) was not received by the accused-appellant. While the poseur-buyer, PO2 Corpuz, showed the marked money to the accused-appellant, and the accused-appellant handed over the "shabu", the transaction was not completed as the money was not transferred to the accused-appellant. The Court cited People v. Hong Yeng E and Tsien Tsien Chua, emphasizing that what consummates a buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked money. Merely showing the money is insufficient to prove a consummated sale. However, the Court clarified that possession is necessarily included in the sale, and thus, the accused-appellant could still be convicted for illegal possession of the "shabu" involved in the attempted sale.
Main Doctrine
The failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the inventory and photographing of seized drugs is not fatal as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Furthermore, for a conviction of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the receipt of the marked money is a material element that consummates the transaction, and mere showing of the money is insufficient.