PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GEMMA DACUMOS Y CANLAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Dacumos

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Gemma Dacumos y Canlas, a criminal appeal from a buy-bust operation in Bacolod City. The accused was charged in two separate cases: illegal sale of shabu under Section 5 of Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, and illegal possession of shabu under Section 11 of the same Article. She was convicted in both by the trial court. The case matters because it is a compact teaching vehicle on the elements of the two drug offenses, on the chain of custody requirement, and on the settled rule that failure to conduct a physical inventory and to take photographs of the seized items does not automatically destroy the prosecution's case. It also illustrates how the Court treats the defense of denial against positive identification by a poseur-buyer.

Procedural History

Two Informations were filed on August 3, 2003 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Bacolod City. The accused entered a plea of not guilty at arraignment on December 5, 2003. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision dated June 29, 2006, finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases. In the sale case, it imposed life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos. In the possession case, it imposed an indeterminate prison term of twelve years and one day, as minimum, to fourteen years, as maximum, and a fine of 300,000 pesos, plus the accessory penalties prescribed by law. The seized sachets were ordered confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government and turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction or disposal in accordance with law.

Aggrieved, the accused filed a Notice of Appeal dated July 7, 2006. She was later transferred to the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which resolved it by affirming the conviction.

Facts

On August 2, 2003, at around one o'clock in the afternoon, a police asset informed Police Senior Inspector Jonathan Lorilla of the Bacolod City Police Office that a certain Gemma Dacumos of Purok Sigay, Barangay 2, Bacolod City was engaged in drug activities. Lorilla assembled a team and briefed them that a buy-bust operation would be conducted, with himself as the poseur-buyer. A 100 peso marked bill was prepared and recorded in the police blotter as the buy-bust money.

At about 4:45 in the afternoon, the team proceeded to the place of operation. Lorilla, in civilian attire and wearing a cap, went with the asset to the front of the accused's house. The asset introduced him to the accused. The accused asked whether they were going to buy shabu, and they agreed. She asked how much, and Lorilla replied that they would buy 100 pesos worth. She asked for the money, and Lorilla handed over the marked bill. In return, the accused gave him two small sachets of suspected shabu, which she took from a tin can she was holding. Upon receipt, Lorilla introduced himself as a police officer and executed the pre-arranged signal. The accused was arrested and informed of the reason for her arrest and of her constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel.

Lorilla recovered the tin can from the accused and found inside it two more elongated sachets of shabu. He marked the sachets with his initials, prepared a request for laboratory examination, and brought them to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The forensic chemist, Police Senior Inspector Augustina Laranang Ompoy, examined the specimens, and both sets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. For her part, the accused testified that she had just woken from a nap, that unfamiliar men entered her house, that the policemen searched her room without a warrant and found nothing, and that she was handcuffed and brought to the police office. She denied the charges.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, the seized shabu, despite the failure of the police officers to conduct a physical inventory and to take photographs of the items as required by Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
• Whether or not the guilt of the accused for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, on the sale of dangerous drugs, provides:

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

This is the provision under which the accused was convicted in the sale case, and it fixes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos imposed on her.

Section 11 of Article II, on the possession of dangerous drugs, provides:

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof: (3) ten (10) grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, cannabis sativa, lysergic acid diethylamide or other similarly designed drugs.

This is the provision under which the accused was convicted in the possession case, and the Court applied it to the two elongated sachets of shabu recovered from the tin can.

Section 21 of Article II, on the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, provides:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

This is the provision the accused invoked, and the Court held that non-compliance with it is not fatal where the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are shown to have been preserved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to take photographs does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible. What is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, for they will be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court found that the police marked the sachets before bringing them to the crime laboratory, that the forensic chemist examined them, and that they were presented in court. The sequence of events showed an unbroken chain of custody, with no gap, for both the sachets sold and those recovered from the accused's possession.

On the second issue, the Court held that all the elements of illegal sale were proven: the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The commission of the offense merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs takes place. For illegal possession, the Court held that the accused possessed an item identified as a prohibited drug, that the possession was not authorized by law, and that she freely and consciously possessed it. The tin can and the two elongated sachets inside it were marked with the initials of the poseur-buyer right after the arrest and tested positive for shabu. The Court also held that the evidence gathered on the occasion of a lawful arrest without warrant is not the fruit of a poisonous tree but admissible proof of guilt. Finally, the Court rejected the defense of denial as inherently weak and unable to overcome the positive identification by the poseur-buyer.

Doctrine

A conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires proof of the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The crime is consummated the moment the exchange of money and drugs takes place.

A conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs requires proof that the accused possessed an item identified as a prohibited drug, that the possession was not authorized by law, and that the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.

Non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible. What is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, and the prosecution must show justifiable grounds for the lapse.

Denial is an inherently weak defense and crumbles in the light of positive identification by the poseur-buyer. It assumes significance only when the prosecution's evidence does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting Gemma Dacumos y Canlas of violation of Section 5 and Section 11 of Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, with costs against the accused-appellant.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that what is crucial in drug cases is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, not a perfect chain of custody. Examiners like to use this case to test the effect of non-compliance with Section 21 and the weight of denial against positive identification by a poseur-buyer.