People v. Carrera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A confidential informant reported to PDEA agents about a certain Latif engaged in selling large amounts of shabu. A buy-bust operation was planned. IO1 Joseph L. Samson was designated as the poseur-buyer, with IO1 Frederick Santos as immediate back-up. The operation involved coordinating with local police and using marked bills as buy-bust money. The team proceeded to Brgy. Malaria, Caloocan City. IO1 Samson and the informant met with an individual identified as the appellant, Rolando Carrera. After confirming the availability of shabu and money, appellant handed a plastic packet containing crystalline substance to IO1 Samson. Upon receipt, IO1 Samson signaled the team, arrested appellant, and read him his constitutional rights. Due to the commotion and presence of spectators, the team decided to leave the area promptly and conduct the inventory and marking of the seized items at the barangay hall of Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City. The seized items consisted of seven sachets of shabu. These were marked, photographed, and submitted for laboratory examination. The laboratory confirmed the substance to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Appellant's urine sample tested negative for dangerous drugs. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 127, Caloocan City, found appellant Rolando Carrera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC decision, finding appellant guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal, with the appellant questioning his conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal delivery of prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Whether the buy-bust operation and the subsequent handling of seized evidence complied with the procedural requirements of R.A. No. 9165, particularly concerning the chain of custody, inventory, and marking of seized items.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding appellant Rolando Carrera y Imbat guilty of Illegal Delivery of Prohibited Drugs as defined under Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal delivery of prohibited drugs: The Court held that while the prosecution failed to establish a consummated sale because the poseur-buyer, IO1 Samson, admitted to not having paid for the shabu after its delivery, this did not absolve the appellant. The information charged the appellant not only with selling but also with delivering prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The Court reiterated its ruling in People v. Maongco and People v. Reyes that a person can be convicted of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs if it is proven that the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, such delivery is not authorized by law, and the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration. In this case, the prosecution established that appellant knowingly passed the shabu to IO1 Samson, and as a tricycle driver, he was without authority to hold and deliver the drug. Therefore, appellant is guilty of illegal delivery of shabu. On the procedural compliance regarding the chain of custody, inventory, and marking of seized items: The Court agreed with the CA and RTC that the buy-bust team was justified in not conducting the inventory or marking at Brgy. Malaria. IO2 Sandaan testified that the operation site was a tricycle terminal with a commotion and many spectators, and the arrested individual was identified as a member of a Muslim drug group. Given that they were only five agents and the risk of staying longer in the area, they decided to proceed to the barangay hall of Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City, for the inventory and marking. The Court acknowledged that strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible under field conditions, and non-compliance under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, will not render the seizure void. The Court found the justification provided by IO2 Sandaan to be valid, as the fear for the loss of life and limb was a suitable justification for not conducting the inventory and marking at the nearest barangay hall or police station. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved as IO1 Samson maintained custody en route and the inventory and marking were conducted by the team, with photographs taken.
Main Doctrine
A person may be convicted of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs if it is proven that the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; such delivery is not authorized by law; and the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration. The absence of payment does not negate guilt for illegal delivery, even if the charge was initially for illegal sale.