PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MYRNA DICINILLA Y DELA PEÑA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Dicinilla

The Case

This is People versus Dicinilla, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Myrna Dicinilla for the illegal sale and the illegal possession of shabu under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case matters because it is the Court's cleanest statement of a rule every reviewee must carry into the bar: a failure to strictly comply with the Section 21 procedure on custody and disposition of seized drugs is not fatal, so long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. It is, in short, a chain-of-custody case, and it teaches how the Court weighs procedural lapses against the preservation of the corpus delicti.

Procedural History

Dicinilla was charged in two separate Informations dated February 17, 2009, one for illegal sale and one for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. She pleaded not guilty. After pre-trial stipulations dispensed with the testimonies of the forensic chemist and the investigator, trial proceeded on the testimonies of the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council operative who acted as poseur-buyer and of the police back-up officer, against Dicinilla's lone testimony for the defense.

The Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64, in its Decision of June 29, 2011, found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charges. For illegal sale it imposed life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos; for illegal possession it imposed an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day to fifteen years and a fine of 400,000 pesos. Insisting on her innocence, Dicinilla appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the admissibility of the seized items, the total disregard of Section 21, and the prosecution's failure to prove the proper chain of custody.

Facts

On February 16, 2009, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force of the Makati City Police received a report from a confidential informant that a certain Myrna Dicinilla and a certain Roy Torres were selling illegal drugs near Laperal Compound in Barangay Guadalupe Viejo, Makati. A composite team of police personnel and Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council operatives was formed. The Council operative Jeffrey Abellana was designated poseur-buyer, PO1 Randy Santos and the others were back-up, and the pre-arranged signal for the team to move in was for Abellana to light a cigarette. A pre-operation report was sent to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and a marked 500 peso bill was issued to Abellana.

At the compound, the confidential informant introduced Abellana to Dicinilla as a buyer. Asked how much shabu he wanted, Abellana answered five hundred pesos. Dicinilla reached into her pocket, revealed several small plastic sachets of white crystalline substance, and handed one to Abellana, who in turn handed her the marked 500 peso bill. After examining the sachet, Abellana lit a cigarette. The team moved in and arrested her. When Abellana ordered her to empty her pockets, the marked bill and four more small plastic sachets were recovered.

Abellana immediately marked the sachets in her presence, brought her to the barangay hall, and prepared an inventory witnessed by a barangay kagawad and PO1 Santos. The drugs were turned over to the duty investigator, who requested laboratory examination. The forensic chemist's report confirmed that the sachets marked as the one sold and the four recovered tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. For her part, Dicinilla testified that seven unknown men came to her house looking for a certain Roy, dragged her into a van, and took her to the police office, a claim the trial court rejected as uncorroborated denial and frame-up.

Issues

• Whether or not the seized drugs are inadmissible because the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, including the taking of photographs and the required markings.
• Whether or not the prosecution established the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drugs.
• Whether or not the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses deserve credence over the accused's defense of denial and frame-up.
• Whether or not all the elements of illegal sale and of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act Number 9165, which the Court quotes in full, 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. — (a) The apprehending officer/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, 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; 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 is the very provision the appeal turns on, because its saving clause is what defeats Dicinilla's argument that the procedural lapses void the seizure.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the failure of the law enforcers to strictly comply with Section 21 is not fatal; it does not render the arrest illegal or the evidence inadmissible. What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. The alleged lapses, said the Court, are frivolous.

On the second issue, the Court found the unbroken chain of custody sufficiently established. Abellana had initial custody of the sachet he bought; he marked the sachets in Dicinilla's presence; he prepared an inventory at the barangay hall witnessed by a kagawad and PO1 Santos; he turned the drugs over to the investigator, who requested laboratory examination; and the specimens received by the laboratory matched the descriptions and markings and tested positive for shabu.

On the third issue, the Court gave credence to the positive and consistent testimonies of Abellana and PO1 Santos, respected the trial court's factual findings on credibility, and applied the presumption of regularity of duty. Denial and frame-up, the Court reminded, are easily concocted and cannot prosper without strong and convincing evidence.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that all the elements of illegal sale were proven — the identities of buyer and seller, the object and the consideration, and the delivery and payment, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti — and that all the elements of illegal possession were proven as well, since possession of dangerous drugs is prima facie evidence of knowledge or intent to possess, which Dicinilla failed to rebut.

Doctrine

First, strict compliance with Section 21 is not indispensable; non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not invalidate the seizure and custody so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Second, what the prosecution must establish is the unbroken chain of custody, from the apprehending officer's marking, through inventory, turnover, and laboratory examination, to identification in court. Third, the elements of illegal sale are the identities of buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and delivery and payment, with the corpus delicti presented in court. Fourth, possession of dangerous drugs is prima facie evidence of knowledge or intent to possess, shifting the burden of evidence to the accused. Fifth, denial and frame-up are weak defenses that cannot overcome positive testimony and the presumption of regularity of duty.

Disposition

The appeal was denied and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64, convicting Dicinilla of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, was affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are preserved. Examiners use this case to test the chain-of-custody exception and the elements of illegal sale and possession under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.