PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONALD USMAN Y SUMLAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Usman versus People

The Case

This is an appeal by Ronald Usman y Sumlay from a joint decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City convicting him of two offenses under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002: the illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II, and the illegal possession of shabu under Section 11, Article II. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, defended the conviction. The case matters to a reviewee because it is the Supreme Court's compact statement of how a buy-bust operation is proved, how the chain of custody is measured in practice, and why the absence of a PDEA coordination does not by itself destroy an entrapment operation.

Procedural History

Two separate Informations were filed against the appellant, one for illegal sale and one for illegal possession, both arising from the same buy-bust operation. The cases were consolidated and raffled to a branch of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. During trial, the prosecution presented two police officers and its documentary and object evidence. The defense presented no witness at all, because the appellant escaped from the custody of his escort in February 2004; an order of arrest and an alias order of arrest were issued against him.

The trial court rendered a joint decision in September 2007, convicting the appellant on both charges. The decision was first promulgated in absentia, since the appellant was then at large. Years later, the decision was declared ineffective because it had not been recorded in the criminal docket of the Office of the Clerk of Court; it was promulgated anew in November 2012 at the National Bilibid Prisons, where the appellant had been committed following his arrest in July 2009. The appellant moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. The appellant then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, faulting the trial court for convicting him despite the prosecution's alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and to preserve the integrity of the corpus delicti.

Facts

In April 2003, an informant came to the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force of the Southern Police District and reported the illegal drug trading activities of a certain Ronald Usman, known as Ron. A team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation, and Police Officer II Gerald Marion Lagos was designated as the poseur-buyer. He was given five one hundred peso bills as marked money. The team proceeded to Manuel L. Quezon Street in Lower Bicutan, Taguig, where the informant introduced the officer to the appellant as a taxi driver and a drug user.

The appellant asked how much the officer wanted to buy, and when told one-half gram, he instructed the officer to wait at the corner of Paraiso Street and General Santos Avenue while he fetched the stuff from his house. After about thirty minutes, the appellant arrived in an owner-type jeep, told the officer to board, and asked for payment. Upon receiving the marked bills, the appellant handed over a plastic sachet containing shabu. The officer then made a missed call to his back-up, the pre-arranged signal. The team rushed to the scene, introduced themselves as police officers, and frisked the appellant, recovering the marked money and another plastic sachet of shabu from the left pocket of his short pants. The officer marked the sachet he bought and the sachet he recovered, and the items were brought to the police station and then to the crime laboratory.

The laboratory examination confirmed that both sachets, each weighing 0.40 gram, contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The appellant was charged, arraigned, and tried. He escaped from his escort in February 2004 and was arrested only in July 2009, so the defense presented no evidence. The trial court convicted him of both charges, and he appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal possession of shabu under Section 11, Article II of the same law.
• Whether or not the failure to strictly comply with the inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act 9165, and the alleged lack of coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, rendered the seized drugs inadmissible.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 9165 provides:

(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 provision the appellant invoked, and the Court measured the police handling of the drugs against it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal lacks merit. To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II, two essential elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt: the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The Court stressed that what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. Here, the straightforward testimonies of the police officers showed that upon receipt of the five hundred peso buy-bust money, the appellant handed the plastic sachet containing 0.40 gram of shabu to the poseur-buyer, and both officers identified in open court the same sachet bearing the marking placed on it at the crime scene, as well as the marked bills. The buy-bust transaction was successfully consummated.

On the second issue, the Court held that the elements of illegal possession were likewise established: the accused was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; the possession was not authorized by law; and the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. Following his lawful arrest for illegal sale, the appellant was searched and another sachet of shabu was found when he was asked to empty his pocket. The Court ruled that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for anything which may have been used or constitutes proof of the commission of an offense, so the search and seizure of the second sachet was valid. The appellant offered no evidence of legal authority to possess the drug, and his act of selling one sachet while keeping another in his pocket showed that he freely and consciously possessed it. The Court added that mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, the intent to possess, sufficient to convict absent a satisfactory explanation.

On the third issue, the Court held that Section 21 need not be followed as an exact science, and that substantial compliance is allowed. What is essential is proof of the presence of all the elements of the offense charged and preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The Court found an unbroken chain of custody: the items were marked at the crime scene, the appellant was immediately brought to the police station, and the seized items were submitted to the crime laboratory within about seven hours of confiscation, accompanied by a letter-request that contained an inventory of the seized items. The physical science report, issued within twenty-four hours, contained not only a qualitative but also a quantitative finding, since it indicated the markings and recorded weights of the specimens. The Court also held that the alleged lack of coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency cannot invalidate the buy-bust operation, because coordination with that agency is not an indispensable element of a proper buy-bust operation. Finally, the Court noted that the appellant's escape from detention further bolstered the finding of guilt, since a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself.

Doctrine

For illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor; what is material is proof that the sale actually transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. For illegal possession under Section 11, Article II, the elements are possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug, absence of legal authority to possess it, and free and conscious possession; mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of animus possidendi, the intent to possess, sufficient to convict absent a satisfactory explanation. Non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 of the Implementing Rules, including the preparation of the inventory and the photographing of the confiscated drugs, is not fatal where there is justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved; substantial compliance suffices. Coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency is not an indispensable element of a proper buy-bust operation, and a buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with that agency.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the appellant for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu, with the penalties and fines imposed by the trial court.

Remember This

Memorize the line that Section 21 need not be followed as an exact science, so that substantial compliance suffices where the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are preserved. Examiners use this case to test the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession, the rule on search incident to a lawful arrest, and the effect of non-coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency on the validity of a buy-bust operation.