People v. Cloma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 25, 2005, an entrapment operation was conducted by the City Mobile Group of Cagayan de Oro City Police Office against Randy Cloma y Cabana (Cloma) for alleged violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165). SPO1 Efren T. Ellevera acted as the poseur-buyer and negotiated to purchase shabu worth ₱500.00. Cloma allegedly sold and delivered a sachet containing a white crystalline substance to SPO1 Ellevera in exchange for marked money bearing Serial No. PB789713. After the transaction, SPO1 Ellevera introduced himself as a police officer, but Cloma resisted arrest and jumped into a river, where he was apprehended by PO2 Michael R. Daleon and PO2 Andres C. Alvarez. The sachet was marked with "A" at the crime scene and later surrendered to PO2 Daleon. The substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), and Cloma's urine sample also tested positive. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25, convicted Cloma of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC found that the elements of the crime were proven, including the sale of a dangerous drug, the lack of legal authority of the seller, the consummation of the sale, the seller's knowledge of the drug, the identification of the parties, and the presentation of the corpus delicti. The RTC sentenced Cloma to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in toto. The Petition: Cloma appealed his conviction, arguing that the RTC erred in convicting him despite the absence of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes of his testimony and the testimony of the Forensic Chemist, and that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Randy Cloma y Cabana violated Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Whether the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug was properly established.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Regional Trial Court's judgment finding appellant Randy Cloma y Cabana guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Randy Cloma y Cabana violated Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165: The Court held that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were sufficiently proven. These elements include the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The testimony of SPO1 Ellevera, the poseur-buyer, positively identified Cloma as the seller and described the exchange of the marked money for the sachet of shabu. The Court reiterated that the delivery of the contraband and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction, thus completing the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The defense of denial presented by Cloma was deemed self-serving and could not overcome the positive testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The Court emphasized that denial is a common defense ploy and lacks credibility against clear and positive testimony. On the issue of whether the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug was properly established: The Court found that the prosecution established the proper chain of custody, thereby preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The Court detailed the four links of custody that must be proven: seizure and marking, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and submission to the court. In this case, SPO1 Ellevera marked the sachet at the crime scene, turned it over to PO2 Daleon, who, along with other officers, submitted it to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The Forensic Chemist confirmed that the substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. SPO1 Ellevera also positively identified the sachet in court as the one he bought from Cloma, bearing his marking and signature. The Court noted the proviso in Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, which states that non-compliance with inventory and photograph requirements, under justifiable grounds, will not render the seizure void as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 by proving the elements of the offense, including the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, the delivery of the drug, and the payment, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti and the proper chain of custody of the seized evidence. The defense of denial is self-serving and cannot overcome positive testimonial evidence.