PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANITA DURAN Y ACASO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People of the Philippines versus Anita Duran

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Anita Duran y Acaso for two offenses under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act: the illegal sale of a small sachet of shabu during a buy-bust operation, and the illegal possession of eight more sachets of shabu recovered from her house at the time of her arrest. The case matters because it is a compact illustration of how the Supreme Court tests the two most heavily examined drug offenses — sale and possession — against the requirements of the chain of custody, and of how the presumption of regularity in the performance of police duty operates when the defense is a bare denial.

Procedural History

Two separate Informations were filed against the accused on the ninth of December 2010, one for illegal sale and one for illegal possession. She entered a plea of not guilty at her arraignment on the fourth of March 2011, and the cases were tried jointly before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Dumaguete City. In a judgment dated the twenty-eighth of January 2013, the trial court convicted her in both cases, imposing life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos for the sale, and life imprisonment and a fine of four hundred thousand pesos for the possession, and ordering the confiscation and forfeiture of the seized drugs in favor of the government. She filed a notice of appeal dated the twenty-second of February 2013, and the records were elevated to the Supreme Court. The appeal was resolved by the Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction in its entirety.

Facts

In the last week of November 2010, a report reached the police that a certain Anita Duran was selling shabu at her residence in the Cadawinonan Housing Project in Dumaguete City. A confidential informant confirmed the report and offered to help, and on the morning of the eighth of December 2010 the buy-bust team was briefed. PO2 Ayunting was designated as the poseur-buyer, to be accompanied by the confidential informant, with a pre-arranged signal of scratching his head once the transaction was complete. PO3 Magsayo was designated as the immediate back-up. A five hundred peso bill was prepared as the buy-bust money.

At about a quarter to eight that morning, the team proceeded to the target area. The poseur-buyer and the confidential informant approached the house, where the accused was standing by the door. The confidential informant told her they wanted to buy shabu, and she asked for the payment. PO2 Ayunting handed over the marked money. The accused went inside, took a jar from the table, poured out its contents, picked one sachet, and handed it to the poseur-buyer, who examined it and then gave the pre-arranged signal. PO3 Magsayo and the rest of the team rushed in and arrested her. On the table and in the jar the police saw several more heat-sealed sachets of shabu, together with the buy-bust money. The poseur-buyer marked the sachet sold as AD-BB, meaning Anita Duran Buy-Bust, and marked the others as AD-P1 and AD-P2 for the two sachets inside the jar and AD-P3 to P8 for the six on the table.

A Certificate of Inventory was prepared and signed by witnesses from the Department of Justice, the barangay, and the media, and the accused witnessed the signing. The items were brought to the crime laboratory, where Chemistry Report Number D-156-10 confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride in all the specimens. For her part, the accused testified that she was at her sister's house that morning to fetch a grandchild for immunization, that two police officers arrived and told her she was under arrest, that they arranged the shabu, and that they took thirty-one thousand pesos belonging to her sister, a pensioner. She denied selling or possessing dangerous drugs.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, including the identity of the corpus delicti.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
• Whether or not the failure of the accused to sign the inventory receipt, and the alleged non-compliance with the witnesses required by Section 21, vitiated the chain of custody and rendered the seized drugs inadmissible.
• Whether or not the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty may be applied in favor of the arresting officers.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, on the illegal 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 charged and convicted in the first case, and it supplies both the elements of the offense and the penalty imposed.

Section 3, paragraph ii, Article I of the same law defines selling, and the Court quotes it:

Selling is defined as any act of giving away any dangerous drug and or controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for money or any other consideration.

This definition anchors the Court's holding that the offense is consummated the moment the exchange of money and drugs takes place.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the elements of illegal sale are the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, the illicit drug itself. The testimony of the poseur-buyer, corroborated in its material points by the back-up officer who was eight meters away in broad daylight, described the offer, the payment of the marked five hundred peso bill, the delivery of the sachet, and the arrest. The Court stressed that the commission of the offense merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place. The sachet was marked at the scene right after the arrest, inventoried before the required witnesses, brought to the crime laboratory, and identified in court, and so the Court found an unbroken chain of custody and the corpus delicti independently established.

On the second issue, the Court held that the elements of illegal possession are that the accused is in possession of an item identified to be a prohibited drug, that such possession is not authorized by law, and that the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The eight sachets were in plain view on the table and in the jar, were marked, examined, and identified in court, and the accused offered no showing of legal authority. The Court applied the settled rule that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi — the intent to possess — sufficient to convict in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, shifting the burden of evidence to the accused, which she failed to discharge.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the argument that the absence of the accused's signature on the inventory receipt, or the alleged lapses in the Section 21 witnesses, destroyed the case. It held that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, and it found that the inventory was in fact signed by representatives of the Department of Justice, the barangay, and the media, and that the accused witnessed the signing.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that her defense of denial cannot prevail against positive identification by the officers who caught her in the act in a legitimate entrapment operation. Credence is given to the narration of prosecution witnesses, especially police officers presumed to have performed their duties regularly, absent evidence to the contrary, and she neither ascribed nor proved any improper motive on their part.

Doctrine

First, in illegal sale under Section 5, Article II, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment; the offense is consummated upon the exchange of money and drugs, and the corpus delicti must be presented in court. Second, in illegal possession under Section 11, the prosecution must prove possession of a prohibited drug, lack of legal authority, and free and conscious possession; possession is prima facie evidence of animus possidendi, which shifts the burden of evidence to the accused. Third, the chain of custody requirement aims at preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, and that preservation, not the accused's signature on the inventory, is the touchstone. Fourth, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands absent contrary evidence, and a bare denial yields to positive identification.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction in both cases, with costs against the accused.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: illegal sale is consummated the moment the exchange of money and drugs takes place, and possession of dangerous drugs is prima facie evidence of animus possidendi. Examiners use this case to test the elements of sale and possession, the chain of custody under Section 21, and the interplay between the presumption of regularity and the defense of denial.