PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL CUNANAN Y DAVID ALIAS “PAENG PUTOL”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Cunanan

The Case

This is the appeal of Rafael Cunanan y David, known as Paeng Putol, against his conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation in Pasig City. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, stands as plaintiff and appellee. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the working rules of the anti-drug law: the elements of illegal sale, the effect of a defective or waived objection to arrest, the chain of custody under Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165, and the rule that non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements does not automatically destroy the prosecution, so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are preserved.

Procedural History

An Information was filed against the appellant on October 19, 2006, charging illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165. He pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on April 30, 2007, and trial on the merits followed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 164. On July 1, 2009, the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, imposed life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos, ordered the confiscation of the plastic sachet in favor of the government for turnover to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction, and taxed him with costs.

The appellant elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals. On January 27, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of reversible error and affirmed the trial court in full. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Court rendered the decision now under study on March 16, 2015.

Facts

At about six o'clock in the evening of October 13, 2006, a confidential informant went to the Eastern Police District intelligence headquarters in Pasig City and reported that a certain Paeng Putol, later identified as the appellant, was selling illegal drugs in Purok 4, Barangay Pineda. Acting on the report, the team leader organized a buy-bust team, designated PO1 Dario Gunda, Junior, as poseur-buyer, and gave him two 100-peso bills marked with his initials. The operation was coordinated with the Pasig City Police Station and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and the team arrived at the target area at 9:20 in the evening.

The informant pointed out the appellant, who was standing beside a store wearing gloves. PO1 Gunda was introduced as a drug user who wanted to buy shabu worth 200 pesos. After receiving the marked money, the appellant entered a narrow alley, returned after a short while, and handed PO1 Gunda a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO1 Gunda then gave the pre-arranged signal, arrested the appellant, and recovered from him the two marked 100-peso bills. The appellant was informed of his constitutional rights and brought to the police station, where the sachet was marked and the items were inventoried and photographed. The specimen was delivered to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory and examined by the forensic chemist, who found it positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, weighing 0.02 gram.

The defense was denial and frame-up. The appellant claimed that while watching a bingo game after dinner, three men held him, handcuffed and frisked him, and took his wallet and cellphone. At the police station, PO2 Familara allegedly threatened to file a case unless he paid 50,000 pesos, which he did not pay. A defense witness testified that she saw three men in haste approach the appellant at the bingo game and suddenly handcuff him.

Issues

• Whether or not the appellant was lawfully arrested in flagrante delicto during a valid buy-bust operation.
• Whether or not it was inconceivable for the appellant to openly sell illegal drugs in a public place where many people were present.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, despite the apprehending officers' non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165.
• Whether or not the conflict in the testimonies of the police officers as to who held the seized item from the target area to the police station created reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the defenses of denial and frame-up or extortion can prevail against the positive testimony of the poseur-buyer.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the provision under which the appellant was charged and 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 offense itself, and it fixes the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine of 500,000 pesos to 10 million pesos regardless of quantity and purity.

Section 21 of the same law, which the appellant invoked on the custody of the seized item, 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. — 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: (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.

This is the procedure the appellant says was not followed, because the inventory and photograph were never offered in evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appellant was lawfully arrested in flagrante delicto. The poseur-buyer's testimony recounted the entire transaction: the request for 200 pesos worth of shabu, the handing over of the two marked bills, the appellant's return from the alley with the sachet, the delivery of the sachet, and the pre-arranged signal. From this, the Court found the elements of illegal sale present: the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The Court added that any irregularity in the arrest should have been raised in a motion to quash before arraignment, and having failed to do so and having actively participated in trial, the appellant is deemed to have waived the objection and is estopped.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that no one would sell drugs openly. Drug pushers, the Court said, now sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, and even in daytime.

On the third issue, the Court held that non-compliance with Section 21 does not necessarily render the seized item inadmissible. What matters is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. The Court traced an unbroken chain of custody: the marking of the sachet at the place of confiscation, the delivery of the request and specimen to the crime laboratory, the qualitative examination by the forensic chemist, and the identification of the marked sachet in court by the poseur-buyer. The Court also held that the integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof of tampering, and the defense showed no ill motive on the part of the officers.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistency as to who held the item from the police station to the crime laboratory did not create doubt that the substance examined and presented in court was the same drug sold by the appellant.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the poseur-buyer, and that the appellant's failure to file any criminal or administrative charge against the officers belied his claim of frame-up and extortion. On the penalty, the Court affirmed life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos, but modified the judgment to state that the appellant shall not be eligible for parole.

Doctrine

First, in a prosecution for illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Second, any irregularity in the arrest must be raised in a motion to quash before arraignment; otherwise, the objection is waived and the accused is estopped. Third, non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 does not render the seized item inadmissible, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the item are preserved through an unbroken chain of custody. Fourth, the integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved absent bad faith, ill will, or proof of tampering. Fifth, denial and frame-up are weak defenses that cannot overcome the positive testimony of the poseur-buyer, especially where no charges were filed against the arresting officers.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was affirmed, with the modification that the appellant shall not be eligible for parole.

Remember This

Memorize this line: strict compliance with Section 21 is not required if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are clearly preserved. Examiners use this case to test the chain of custody rule, the waiver of objections to arrest, and the elements of illegal sale under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.