PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SHERWIN BIS Y AVELLANEDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Bis

The Case

People versus Bis is a criminal appeal in a buy-bust prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The People of the Philippines charged Sherwin Bis y Avellaneda with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for selling three plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, to a police officer who posed as the buyer. The case matters because it is a compact teaching vehicle on three recurring bar themes: the elements of illegal sale, the chain of custody requirement under Section 21, and the rule that non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements is not automatically fatal where the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs are preserved.

Procedural History

Bis was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 29, and, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos, and ordered the confiscation of the three sachets of shabu with a total weight of 0.069 gram, to be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.

Bis appealed to the Court of Appeals, insisting that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the police officers had not regularly performed their duties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction in its decision of September 22, 2009. Unable to accept the verdict, Bis elevated the same issues to the Supreme Court for final determination, and the case reached the Court on appeal from the affirmed judgment of conviction.

Facts

On November 26, 2006, a civilian informant tipped the San Fernando City Police Station about the alleged drug pushing activity of Bis at his residence in Pagdalagan Norte, San Fernando City, La Union. Police Officers Manuel Espejo, Jose Arce and Joselito Casem conducted a surveillance that same day from a store about ten meters away from the house, and a second surveillance the following evening confirmed that drug activities were happening there. The officers reported to their superior, who ordered a buy-bust operation on November 28, 2006. Espejo was designated as poseur-buyer, with Arce and Casem as back-ups, and Espejo was given a 1,000 peso bill bearing the initials MCE as marked money.

At about 10:40 in the evening, the team proceeded to the target area. Arce and Casem posted themselves at a nearby store while Espejo approached Bis, who was standing in front of his house, and told him, Pards pakikuha ng isang bulto. Bis asked where the money was, and after Espejo handed him the 1,000 peso bill, Bis went inside the house and emerged with three plastic sachets placed in another plastic container. Convinced the substance was shabu, Espejo gave the pre-arranged signal by putting his hand on top of his head. The officers rushed to assist, introduced themselves as members of the San Fernando City Police, placed Bis under arrest and apprised him of his constitutional rights.

At the police station, a further search on Bis yielded aluminum foils and the marked money. Espejo marked the three sachets with the initials MC-1, MC-2 and MC-3, and the team brought the request for laboratory examination together with the confiscated items to the Regional Chief of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service. The laboratory examination yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. For his part, Bis denied the allegations. He claimed that Espejo suddenly grabbed him as he was leaving his house, that nothing was found on him when he was frisked, and that at the main police station Espejo showed him three aluminum foils and three plastic sachets which were allegedly found on him.

Issues

• Whether or not the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses impair their credibility and the proof of the elements of illegal sale.
• Whether or not the prosecution complied with the chain of custody requirements of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, and if not, whether the seized drugs remain admissible and their integrity preserved.
• Whether or not the defense of denial may prevail against the evidence of a legitimate buy-bust operation.
• Whether or not the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos was properly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165 provides the penalty for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs:

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 very provision under which Bis was charged and convicted, and it fixes the penalty affirmed by the Court.

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165 provides the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs:

(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;

Bis invoked this provision to argue that the failure to inventory and photograph the seized items cast doubt on their identity.

Section 21, paragraph a of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act Number 9165 implements that provision:

(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;

The proviso is decisive, because it saves the seizure where integrity and evidentiary value are preserved despite procedural gaps.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the inconsistencies pointed out by Bis were inconsequential. They related only to minor matters, such as where the aluminum foils and marked money were found and what kind of shorts he was wearing, and did not touch the essence of the crime. The Court restated the settled rule that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, which refer only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the veracity and weight of their testimonies where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the accused. Here the witnesses were in harmony on the positive identification of Bis as the seller in a planned buy-bust operation.

On the second issue, the Court held that non-compliance with Section 21 and its Implementing Rules is not fatal and will not render an arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The Court found the chain of custody unbroken: from the moment of seizure, the items were brought to the police station, marked with the initials MC-1, MC-2 and MC-3, inventoried, and immediately delivered by Espejo himself to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where Police Inspector Melanie Joy Ordoño examined the marked specimens and confirmed they contained shabu. The defense admitted the existence and due execution of the laboratory request, the chemistry report and the specimens, and Espejo identified in court the very sachets confiscated from Bis. The Court added that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof of tampering, and the burden of proof rests on the appellant, which Bis failed to discharge. It also noted that he did not seasonably question the procedural gaps before the trial court, and objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the defense of denial. Bis was caught in flagrante delicto, in the act, in a legitimate buy-bust operation, and the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, is viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos was properly imposed by the lower courts.

Doctrine

First, in a prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the elements are the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration of the sale, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Second, the dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, and the prosecution must establish with unwavering exactitude that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused. Third, non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 is not fatal, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, as the Implementing Rules themselves expressly allow. Fourth, the integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved absent a showing of bad faith, ill will or tampering, and the burden rests on the appellant. Fifth, minor inconsistencies in witness testimony on collateral matters do not impair credibility where the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the accused are consistent. Sixth, denial and frame-up are disfavored defenses, especially against the positive identification made in a legitimate buy-bust operation.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the judgment of conviction, and Sherwin Bis y Avellaneda stands guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, so that a procedural lapse under Section 21 does not by itself acquit. Examiners like to use this case to test the chain of custody exception and the rule that the drug itself is the corpus delicti of the offense.