People v. Guadaña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An Information for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 was filed against Aljon Guadaña y Antiquera (accused-appellant) and co-accused Dan Mark Lulu y Baraquiel. The Information alleged that on February 26, 2015, at approximately 9:10 p.m., in P-1, Buyo, Manito, Albay, the accused unlawfully sold to PO2 Roger Dajac, acting as poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.058 gram of white crystalline substance, positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), for P500.00. Procedural History: The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented evidence that surveillance confirmed the accused-appellant was dealing in illegal drugs. A buy-bust operation was conducted on February 26, 2015. PO2 Dajac agreed to buy shabu from the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant handed over a sachet of suspected shabu and received P500.00 in marked money. The marking and inventory of the seized items were conducted at the barangay hall in the presence of the accused-appellant and barangay officials, due to the darkness at the scene of the apprehension. The seized item was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The RTC found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000.00. His co-accused, Lulu, was acquitted. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC judgment with modification, stating the accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole. The accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed his conviction, raising the issue of whether the CA erred in affirming his conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Whether the chain of custody was properly established and whether the penalty imposed was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision dated March 30, 2017, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 08300, which affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Aljon Guadaña y Antiquera for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The penalty imposed was life imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of affirming the conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and proving the elements of illegal sale: The Court found no merit in the appeal. To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Crucially, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established beyond reasonable doubt, which requires showing an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items from seizure to presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. A break in this chain is fatal to the prosecution's case. Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, must physically inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provide a saving clause: non-compliance with these requirements, under justifiable grounds, will not render the seizure and custody void and invalid, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. In this case, the marking and inventory were conducted at the barangay hall due to the darkness and remote location of the apprehension site, which was deemed a practical and safe measure. The absence of DOJ and media representatives was justified by their unavailability in the remote area of Manito, Albay, and the security concerns along the highway connecting it to Legazpi City, as well as the time constraints that would have delayed the inventory. The Court found these grounds to be justifiable, and the integrity of the seized shabu was preserved throughout the chain of custody, from apprehension to laboratory examination and presentation in court. On the chain of custody and the penalty imposed: The Court affirmed that under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is life imprisonment regardless of the quantity involved. The quantity is only considered for the purpose of determining the fine. Given that the confiscated drug weighed 0.058 gram, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000.00, as imposed by the CA, were deemed proper.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. A break in the chain of custody of the prohibited drug is fatal to the case. However, non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not render the seizure and custody void and invalid if there are justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.