PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALICE PACA Y TAÑAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People of the Philippines versus Paca

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a buy-bust prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The People of the Philippines charged Alice Paca, together with a certain Darwin Garcia who remained at large, with selling shabu to a poseur-buyer of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in Cebu City. The trial court convicted her, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and she brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold on to: it shows how conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of an accused who is not the principal seller, and it shows when a deviation from the strict inventory and photograph requirements of the dangerous drugs law will be excused.

Procedural History

An Information dated January 23, 2009 charged Alice Paca with violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, for selling shabu in conspiracy with Darwin Garcia. She pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.

The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, in a Judgment dated February 22, 2012, found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced her to life imprisonment, and imposed a fine of 500,000 pesos. The packet of shabu was forfeited in favor of the government, with its disposal held in abeyance because of the separate charge against Darwin Garcia.

She appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning a single error: that the trial court erred in convicting her despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the elements of the offense and to establish the identity of the corpus delicti, meaning the body of the crime, with moral certainty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The case then reached the Supreme Court on appeal, and the Supreme Court likewise affirmed.

Facts

At around one o'clock in the afternoon of January 21, 2009, an informant appeared at the regional office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in Cebu City and reported that a certain Darwin Garcia, said to be a big-time drug pusher in Pasil and nearby barangays, was looking for a buyer of shabu in exchange for a commission. A briefing was held, a team was formed, and PO3 George Cansancio was designated as the poseur-buyer, with FO3 Rayford Yap as part of the team. FO3 Yap marked a 500 peso bill with his initials, the operation was entered in the agency blotter, and an authority to operate was prepared.

The informant contacted Garcia by text message, and the team proceeded to the area. Garcia arrived together with Alice Paca and approached the informant. Garcia demanded the money, and PO3 Cansancio handed him the marked 500 peso bill. Garcia then asked Paca for the pack of shabu, and she handed a plastic pack to him, which he in turn gave to PO3 Cansancio. The poseur-buyer gave the pre-arranged signal by dropping a face towel. Garcia pushed him and escaped through a nearby house, and the chase proved futile in the crowded area. Paca tried to escape but was captured, and FO3 Yap informed her of her offense and her constitutional rights.

The inventory could not be prepared at the scene because a crowd gathered and some persons threw stones at the buy-bust team, so the team withdrew and prepared the inventory at the agency office. Barangay Councilor Elsa Iso and media representative Virgilio Salde of Bombo Radyo witnessed and signed the Certificate of Inventory, and photographs were taken. PO3 Cansancio marked the plastic pack, kept it in his custody, and personally delivered it to the Regional Crime Laboratory in Cebu City. The forensic chemical officer, Mutchit Salinas, found that the specimen contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, as reflected in a chemistry report dated January 22, 2009. For her part, Paca claimed she was watching television at home when the police arrived looking for Garcia, that an officer was about to hit her with his firearm, and that she was handcuffed and detained.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved all the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not conspiracy between Alice Paca and Darwin Garcia was established, such that the acts of Garcia are also the acts of Paca.
• Whether or not the buy-bust team's failure to immediately mark and inventory the seized drugs at the scene of the crime destroyed the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
• Whether or not the defense of denial and frame-up can prevail over the categorical testimony of the arresting officers.

Applicable Provisions

Section 26, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, on attempt and conspiracy, provides:

Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act: (a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; (b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; (c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form; (d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and (e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.

This is the provision under which Paca was charged, because the Information alleged that she conspired with Garcia in the sale, so that the penalty for the sale itself attaches to her.

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, on custody and disposition of seized drugs, provides:

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 procedure the appellant claimed was violated, and the Court measured the team's conduct against it.

Section 21, paragraph (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act Number 9165 provides:

The apprehending office/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: Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

This proviso is the saving clause the Court applied, excusing non-compliance where the grounds are justifiable and the integrity of the evidence is preserved.

The same provision fixes the place of the inventory, thus:

Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures.

This authorized the team to prepare the inventory at its office rather than at the scene of the warrantless seizure.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all three elements of illegal sale were present: the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. PO3 Cansancio was the poseur-buyer and Garcia the seller; the object was 0.03 gram of shabu for 500 pesos; and the marked bill was handed over as payment, followed by the delivery of the shabu to the poseur-buyer. The Court stressed that the crime is consummated the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller, and that the corpus delicti was presented in court and properly identified through the markings.

On the second issue, the Court held that conspiracy was established even without direct proof of a prior agreement, because conspiracy is predominantly mental and is rarely documented. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, which point to a common purpose, concert of action, and community of interest. Here, Paca arrived together with Garcia, stood beside him, and handed him the plastic pack of shabu upon his request after he received the money, which he then delivered to the poseur-buyer. These acts showed a common design, and when conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators.

On the third issue, the Court held that the failure to mark and inventory the drugs at the scene was justified, because a crowd gathered and threw stones at the team, making it no longer practicable to do so there. The team's withdrawal to its office was reasonable judgment, allowed by the Implementing Rules, and the integrity of the evidence was preserved: PO3 Cansancio had sole custody from the transaction until the office, marked the pack with his initials, the date, and his signature, the inventory was witnessed and signed by an elected official and a media representative, and he personally delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory. The Court also quoted its earlier ruling in the Sultan case, that slight infractions or nominal deviations from the prescribed method of handling the corpus delicti should not exculpate an otherwise guilty defendant where the integrity and identity of the specimen remain intact.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that denial and frame-up are weak defenses, easily concocted and viewed with disfavor, and cannot outweigh the categorical, consistent, and positive testimony of the officers, especially where no ill motive was shown against them and they did not even know the accused.

Doctrine

First, the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is consummated upon the delivery of the drug by the seller to the buyer, and what is material is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.

Second, conspiracy is predominantly mental, consisting of a meeting of minds and intent, and may be proved by the acts of the accused before, during, and after the crime that show a common purpose, concert of action, and community of interest. Once conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, and under Section 26 of Republic Act Number 9165 the conspirator in a sale suffers the same penalty as the seller.

Third, non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 is excused under justifiable grounds, such as the hostility of a crowd at the scene, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, as the Implementing Rules expressly allow.

Fourth, denial and frame-up, being easily fabricated and disfavored, cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification made by the arresting officers in the absence of proof of ill motive.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Alice Paca for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, with life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: conspiracy is predominantly mental, and once it is shown, the act of one is the act of all. Examiners use this case to test the inference of conspiracy from the physical acts of a courier who is not the seller, and to test the justifiable-grounds exception to the inventory and photograph rule under Section 21.