PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DOÑA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Amansec

The Case

People versus Amansec is a criminal appeal in which the State prosecuted Benjamin Amansec for selling methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case matters because it gathers, in one decision, the Court's settled answers to the recurring defense attacks on buy-bust operations — the absent informant, the missing buy-bust bill of a third-party buyer, the lack of prior surveillance, the undusted money — and because it shows how the Court treats non-compliance with the custody and inventory requirements of Section 21 of the same law. For the bar candidate, it is a compact review of the elements of illegal sale and of the chain of custody rule.

Procedural History

Amansec was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95, in two separate cases — one for illegal possession under Section 11 and one for illegal sale under Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165. He pleaded not guilty to both. The two cases were later tried jointly. On August 30, 2006, the trial court convicted him of illegal sale, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos, but acquitted him of illegal possession on the ground that the second sachet was absorbed in the sale. Amansec appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, on April 15, 2008, affirmed the conviction in full. He then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, assigning the same errors he had raised below.

Facts

On the night of June 15, 2003, an informant arrived at the La Loma Police Station and spoke with Police Inspector Oliver Villanueva. A buy-bust team was formed, with Police Officer 1 Alfredo Mabutol, Jr. as poseur-buyer and Police Officers Ronald Pascua and Roderick Valencia as back-up. Mabutol was given a one hundred peso bill, which he marked with his initials and recorded in his dispatch book. The team proceeded to Santos Street in Barangay Damayan, San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City, with the informant leading Mabutol to Amansec's house.

The informant introduced Mabutol as a drug addict in need of drugs. As Mabutol was about to buy one hundred pesos worth of shabu, another buyer, Jerome Pintis, arrived and also bought shabu. Amansec showed three plastic sachets, let Pintis pick one after paying, and then handed another sachet to Mabutol in exchange for the marked money. Mabutol gave the pre-arranged signal. Valencia arrested Pintis and recovered a sachet from him; Pascua chased Amansec, who tried to flee, frisked him, and recovered the buy-bust money and another sachet. The team marked the sachets and turned them over to the investigator, who brought them to the crime laboratory.

On June 16, 2003, the forensic chemist examined the three sachets and found all of them positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. At trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Mabutol and Pascua. Amansec denied the charges and claimed the police had entered his room, searched it, and pressured him to name a big-time drug pusher in exchange for his release. The trial court found the police testimonies clear, consistent, and corroborative, and convicted him of sale.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite the alleged unreality of the buy-bust operation.
• Whether or not the evidence against Amansec was inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165.
• Whether or not the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the specimens, such that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the provision under which Amansec was 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 (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 crime charged and the source of the penalty of life imprisonment and the 500,000 peso fine.

Section 21 of the same law, which Amansec invoked against the admissibility of the evidence, provides in its pertinent first paragraph:

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:

Its first paragraph on procedure requires the apprehending team to inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, his representative or counsel, a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and an elected public official — the requirement Amansec says was breached.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err in crediting the prosecution witnesses. Each of Amansec's objections was answered in turn. The non-inclusion of Pintis as a co-accused was of no moment, because Pintis was apprehended for a separate illegal act and Amansec was on trial for selling to Mabutol, the poseur-buyer. The non-presentation of Pintis's one hundred peso bill was likewise immaterial, since the sale charged was the sale to Mabutol. On the absent informant, the Court ruled that the presentation of an informant is not essential for conviction, because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative. On the lack of prior surveillance, the Court held that prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, especially where the team is accompanied to the target area by its informant. On the undusted buy-bust money, the Court held that the use of initials to mark the money has been accepted, and that the manner of marking is the prosecution's prerogative.

On the second and third issues, the Court rejected the claim that the evidence was inadmissible and that the chain of custody was broken. It sustained the reasoning of the Court of Appeals that non-compliance by the apprehending officer with Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. The Court found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction.

Doctrine

First, in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, what must be proven is the sale itself — the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration — so that evidence relating to a different buyer or a different transaction is not indispensable.

Second, the presentation of the informant is not a requisite for conviction in a drug case, because the informant's testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative.

Third, prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation, especially when the police are accompanied to the scene by their civilian informant.

Fourth, the failure to dust the buy-bust money with ultraviolet powder does not render the operation a sham, since the use of initials to mark the money has been accepted by the Court.

Fifth, non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 is not fatal, provided there is justifiable ground for the non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in full, sustaining Amansec's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, with life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 is not fatal so long as there is justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Examiners use this case to test the elements of illegal sale and the settled rule that the informant, prior surveillance, and ultraviolet powder are not indispensable to a valid buy-bust operation.