PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TENG MONER Y ADAM, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Teng Moner versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the appeal of Teng Moner against the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming his conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Moner for selling three point ninety-one grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, to a police poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation. The case matters because it is a compact illustration of how the Supreme Court treats three recurring defenses in drug cases: the non-presentation of the informant, minor inconsistencies in the testimony of police witnesses, and noncompliance with the strict requirements of Section 21 on the custody and disposition of seized drugs. It teaches when substantial compliance will save a conviction and when it will not.

Procedural History

Moner was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95, in two separate criminal cases: one for illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and another for illegal possession under Section 11, Article II, against Moner and several co-accused. Upon arraignment, Moner pleaded not guilty to the charge of illegal sale. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a joint decision on August 4, 2009. It convicted Moner of illegal sale and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos. In the same judgment, it acquitted Moner and his co-accused of illegal possession for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and ordered the evidence in that case delivered to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.

Moner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction in a decision dated July 27, 2011. Moner then interposed the present appeal before the Supreme Court, reiterating the same errors he had assigned before the appellate court.

Facts

On April 23, 2005, operatives of the Las Piñas Police Station arrested a certain Joel Taudil for possession of illegal drugs. Upon investigation, Taudil revealed that his source of illegal drugs was Teng Moner, who lived at Tandang Sora, Quezon City. Acting on this information, Police Chief Inspector Jonathan Cabal formed a buy-bust team. The team prepared a pre-operation report addressed to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, an authority to operate outside their jurisdiction, and a coordination paper. They then proceeded to Camp Karingal for proper coordination with the Central Police District, and from there to Varsity Lane, Barangay Culiat, Tandang Sora, Quezon City, together with Taudil.

At the target area, the poseur-buyer, Police Officer 2 Joachim Panopio, and Taudil approached Moner's house. Taudil introduced Panopio as a friend interested in buying shabu. Moner quoted eight thousand pesos for five grams and, after confirming that Panopio had the money, went inside the house. He returned after a few minutes and handed a plastic sachet of suspected shabu to Panopio, who in turn gave him the marked and boodle money. As Moner was about to count the money, Panopio gave the pre-arranged signal and introduced himself as a police officer. Moner resisted and ran inside the house but was caught. The other team members entered and saw the other accused gathered around a table repacking shabu. The items were confiscated and placed in a plastic bag.

The team brought the arrested persons to the Las Piñas Police Station. There, Panopio turned over the items to Police Officer 3 Rufino Dalagdagan, who marked them in the presence of the police operatives, Moner, and his co-accused, and prepared the corresponding inventory. The specimens were brought to the crime laboratory and tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense, for its part, claimed that the police entered the house without a warrant while the group was preparing for a wedding, searched the premises, and planted the plastic sachet; that Moner was slapped when he denied ownership; and that they were asked for money for their release.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• Whether or not the failure to present the informant in court weakens the case for the prosecution.
• Whether or not the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses destroy their credibility.
• Whether or not the failure of the apprehending officers to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 on physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs warrants acquittal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 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 provision Moner invoked, and the Court measured the conduct of the apprehending officers against it.

Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 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: (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 noncompliance 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 saving clause the Court applied, allowing substantial compliance where the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are preserved.

Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 provides:

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

This definition supplies the standard the Court used to test whether the identity of the drug was preserved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of illegal sale were proven: the transaction or sale took place, the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence, and the buyer and seller were identified. The drugs and the marked money were presented and identified in court, and Panopio, the poseur-buyer, positively identified Moner as the seller for eight thousand pesos.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the presentation of the informant is not indispensable to a successful prosecution. Informants are ordinarily not presented for security reasons, to protect them from retaliation. Only when the testimony of the informant is absolutely essential should the need to protect his security be disregarded. Here, the poseur-buyer himself testified, and the other members of the buy-bust team gave clear and credible testimonies.

On the third issue, the Court held that the inconsistencies pointed out were minor variances that did not deviate from the main narrative that Moner sold illegal drugs to a poseur-buyer. Minor inconsistencies even enhance truthfulness, as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. The Court added that the trial court's determination of credibility, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit.

On the fourth issue, the Court refused to give credence to the claim of a broken chain of custody. It acknowledged that the inventory was not made at the place of seizure and that no photograph was taken there, but held that the apprehending officers substantially complied with the law. The records showed that the drugs were marked and a physical inventory was prepared at the Las Piñas Police Station, where Moner and his co-accused were brought for processing, in their presence. The Court restated the governing rule:

We have consistently ruled that noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 will not necessarily render the illegal drugs seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs have been preserved, i.e., the illegal drugs being offered in court as evidence is, without a specter of doubt, the very same item recovered in the buy-bust operation.

The Court also accepted the explanation of the apprehending officers that they pulled out from the area immediately because it was outside their area of responsibility.

Doctrine

First, in a prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the elements are the consummation of the sale, the presentation of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence, and the identification of the buyer and the seller. Second, the non-presentation of the informant does not defeat the prosecution, because the informant is ordinarily withheld for security reasons; the testimony of the poseur-buyer and the other members of the buy-bust team suffices. Third, minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not destroy credibility but may even enhance it, and the trial court's credibility findings, affirmed by the appellate court, are entitled to great respect. Fourth, noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not automatically render the seized drugs inadmissible; under the saving clause of Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules, noncompliance under justifiable grounds will not invalidate the seizure and custody so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The test is whether the drug offered in court is, without a specter of doubt, the very same item recovered in the buy-bust operation.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, sustaining Moner's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs and his sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that strict compliance with Section 21 is not required where the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are clearly shown to have been preserved. Examiners like to use this case to test the chain of custody rule, the saving clause in the Implementing Rules, and the rule that the informant need not be presented in court.