People v. Jao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 2, 2008, at around 5:45 PM, a police team from NBI checked into Room 6 of Four Queens Motel in Barangay Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, following a tip that Allan Jao y Calonia (Jao) was selling shabu; the informant, acting as poseur-buyer, called Jao to deliver shabu worth P800.00. Jao arrived at approximately 6:00 PM, handed one plastic sachet of shabu (0.01 gram) from his waistband to the informant upon signal, leading to his immediate arrest in flagrante delicto by the waiting officers. Incident to the arrest, a search yielded six additional plastic sachets of shabu (total 0.06 gram) from Jao, marked by SI Marlon Manzanaris, who retained sole custody in a black bag. Jao then voluntarily disclosed Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio (Catigtig) as his source and cooperated by calling him to deliver ten more sachets; inventory was suspended, and the team returned to headquarters. At 7:30 PM, after Catigtig texted his arrival, a second buy-bust ensued: Catigtig entered Room 6, handed a Marlboro pack containing ten sachets (0.10 gram) to poseur-buyer SPO2 Allen Germodo introduced by Jao, received the signal 'Okay na ni,' and was arrested; a frisk uncovered one more sachet (0.06 gram), three tinfoil wrappers, and two empty sachets, all marked by SPO2 Germodo. Inventory followed immediately in the presence of media, DOJ, and barangay representatives, with photos taken; items confirmed as shabu by PCI Josephine Llena after turnover to the Crime Lab. Jao and Catigtig denied involvement, claiming they were lured to the motel by calls about a woman, then mauled and framed by police. Procedural History: Four Amended Informations dated September 23, 2008 charged Jao with illegal delivery (Case No. 19189, 0.01g) and possession (Case No. 19190, 0.06g), and Catigtig with delivery (Case No. 19187, 0.10g) and possession (Case No. 19188, 0.06g + paraphernalia), all under RA 9165. Arraigned on September 26, 2008, pleas of not guilty entered. RTC Branch 30, Dumaguete City, convicted both via Joint Judgment (August 25, 2011): life imprisonment + P500k fine each for delivery; 12y1d-14y + P400k fine each for possession, upholding buy-busts, searches, testimonies, and chain of custody. CA affirmed in toto (October 28, 2015, CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01393). Accused appealed; Catigtig's death on August 7, 2015 notified via Bureau of Corrections letter (February 9, 2016). The Petition: Accused-appellants argued denial and frame-up, claiming police instigation via luring calls, mauling, and planted evidence; challenged buy-busts as invalid, arrests/searches unconstitutional, and chain of custody broken due to delayed inventory and custody lapses. Prosecution countered with positive eyewitness testimonies of poseur-buyers/officers, unbroken custody (SI Manzanaris sole holder for Jao's items), compliance with witnesses/photography, and lab confirmation; defenses inherently weak against credible evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal delivery and possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 against accused-appellants, including validity of buy-bust operations, incidental searches, and chain of custody. Whether the supervening death of accused-appellant Catigtig pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability and warrants dismissal of his cases.
Ruling
Appeal denied as to Jao, affirming his guilt and sentences in Criminal Case Nos. 19189 (life imprisonment + P500,000 fine) and 19190 (12 years 1 day to 14 years + P400,000 fine); cases against deceased Catigtig (Nos. 19187-19188) dismissed and declared closed/terminated.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Guilt for Illegal Delivery and Possession): The RTC and CA correctly established Jao's liability, as he personally delivered 0.01 gram shabu to the informant in a planned buy-bust without coercion—mere order placement and delivery upon arrival constituting knowing, unauthorized transfer under Section 5, RA 9165 (People v. Maongco, 720 Phil. 488). Incidentally, six sachets (0.06g) found on his person post-arrest proved conscious possession sans authority under Section 11 (People v. Montevirgen, 723 Phil. 534, citing People v. Sembrano). Buy-busts were legitimate entrapment, not instigation, with pre-arranged signals and no police inducement beyond tip-initiated operation. Chain of custody untainted: SI Manzanaris marked and solely held Jao's items from seizure (in black bag, locked cabinet) until lab turnover via PO1 Tan to PCI Llena, whose tests confirmed shabu; suspended inventory justified by Jao's cooperation leading to Catigtig's arrest, but formal inventory later with required witnesses complied substantially. Defenses of denial/frame-up rejected as self-serving against positive, consistent officer testimonies and physical evidence. Supreme Court defers to trial court's credibility assessments, affirmed by CA, as final absent overlooked facts (Guevarra v. People, 726 Phil. 183; Maxwell Heavy Equipment v. Yu, 653 Phil. 338). Thus, guilt beyond reasonable doubt proven. On Issue 2 (Death Pending Appeal): Catigtig's death on August 7, 2015 (pre-final judgment) extinguishes criminal liability totally under Article 89(1), Revised Penal Code, including personal penalties and pecuniary fines, as no convict remains to punish (People v. Egagamao, G.R. No. 218809). This terminates only criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto stricto sensu directly from the offense, per Justice Regalado's elucidation in People v. Bayotas (236 SCRA 239). Bureau of Corrections' letter and death certificate confirm supervening cause, mandating dismissal/closure of Cases Nos. 19187-19188, distinguishing from surviving civil claims not solely offense-based.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution for illegal delivery of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 requires proof that the accused passed possession of a dangerous drug to another personally or otherwise, without legal authorization, and with knowing intent, even without consideration. For illegal possession under Section 11, Article II, it must be shown that the accused possessed a prohibited drug without authority and with free and conscious awareness. The chain of custody remains intact when items are under sole custody of marking officers from seizure to laboratory examination, as here with SI Manzanaris holding Jao's items uninterruptedly. Factual findings of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court absent overlooked substantial facts. Critically, the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability entirely, including personal and pecuniary penalties if before final judgment, mandating dismissal of cases, as clarified in People v. Egagamao citing People v. Bayotas, distinguishing it from civil liabilities not solely ex delicto.