THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RADDIE DELOS REYES Y ROBLES @ RADDIE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Delos Reyes

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Raddie Delos Reyes y Robles, an appeal from a conviction for the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accused was charged in two separate cases, one for selling shabu and one for possessing it, and the trial court convicted him of the sale but acquitted him of the possession. The case matters because it is a chain-of-custody case: the appellant does not deny that a buy-bust operation was mounted, but insists that the police failed to comply with the mandatory witnessing and inventory requirements of Section 21 of the law, and the Supreme Court must decide whether that failure destroys the conviction.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 269, and, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to both charges. After a joint trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision on 22 May 2013, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and imposing life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos, while acquitting him of illegal possession for insufficiency of evidence. From that conviction he appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as his lone error that the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

Shortly after midnight on 4 June 2012, a regular confidential informant appeared at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs office of the Valenzuela City Police Station and reported that a certain Raddie delos Reyes was selling shabu at Filipinas Aluminum along Navarette Street, Arkong-Bato, Valenzuela City. The informant described him as tall and fair-complexioned, previously arrested in Marilao, Bulacan and in Malabon, and said that he kept the shabu in a small plastic box. A team was formed, a briefing was held, and PO1 Julius Congson was designated as poseur-buyer. He was given three one-hundred-peso bills as buy-bust money and placed his initials on them before proceeding to the target area.

At around half past one in the morning the team arrived at the target area. The informant pointed out the tall man standing beside a Meralco post, introduced PO1 Congson, and said they were buying shabu. The accused asked how much, and PO1 Congson answered that it was three pesos only, meaning three hundred pesos. The accused took the bait money, put it in his right pocket, drew a small plastic box from his left pocket containing two heat-sealed sachets of white crystalline substance, and handed one sachet to PO1 Congson. PO1 Congson then held him and introduced himself as a police officer; the accused resisted, but the other operatives rushed in and handcuffed him. The box, the bait money, and a five-hundred-peso bill were recovered from him, and he was brought to the barangay outpost.

At the outpost the evidence was placed on a table while the police waited for a barangay kagawad. Kagawad Cesar Samala arrived at twenty minutes to three in the morning, and the inventory then began. Present were only Kagawad Samala, SPO3 Ronald Sanchez, the accused, and PO1 Congson. There was no representative from the media and no representative from the Department of Justice during the inventory. The accused told the kagawad that nothing had been taken from him. The specimens were later examined by a forensic chemist, who found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, and the accused's urine sample likewise tested positive. In his defense, the accused claimed that he had merely been invited for verification, that the police demanded money from him, and that the sachets were produced by a superior officer from a box labeled with another person's name.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
• Whether or not the failure of the police to secure the signatures of the accused and of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice on the inventory, as required by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, vitiates the conviction.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the provision under which the accused was charged and convicted, 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 to Ten million pesos 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 crime of illegal sale, whose elements the prosecution had to establish beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 21, Article II of the same law, the provision on the custody and disposition of seized 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 PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (1) 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 appellant invokes, because the inventory in his case was signed only by an elected public official and the police, without the accused, the media, or the Department of Justice.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal has no merit. For the successful prosecution of illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, two elements must be proven: first, the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and second, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, as evidence. The Court found that the prosecution clearly recounted how the buy-bust operation was conducted and how the subject sachet was submitted as evidence, and that PO1 Congson categorically testified to the entire sequence, from the informant's report to the marking of the sachets with his initials and the date.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that the incomplete inventory destroyed the case. The Court noted that the buy-bust operation was properly conducted and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The Court thus affirmed the conviction, holding that the police officers were acting in the performance of their duty and in good faith, and that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stood absent any showing of ill motive or of tampering with the evidence.

Doctrine

First, in every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, 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 therefor; the corpus delicti must be presented in court. Second, the requirements of Section 21 on inventory and photographing are the mechanism for preserving the chain of custody, and what the law guards is the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Third, where the buy-bust operation is shown to have been regularly conducted and the integrity of the evidence preserved, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty sustains the conviction, and the accused's bare denial cannot overcome the positive testimony of the arresting officer.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Raddie Delos Reyes for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, with the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that what matters in a drugs case is the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, and that a buy-bust operation regularly conducted carries the presumption of regularity. Examiners use this case to test the elements of illegal sale under Section 5 and the consequences of a defective Section 21 inventory.