PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HARLEY UYSON Y SANTIAGO ALIAS “AMO,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Uyson

The Case

This is an appeal by Harley Uyson y Santiago, known as Amo, against the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming his conviction by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the illegal sale and the illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The People of the Philippines is the plaintiff and appellee. The case matters because it is a working illustration of how the Supreme Court tests the chain of custody of seized drugs: who must witness the marking and inventory, when they must be present, and whether a short delay in turning the specimens over to the crime laboratory destroys the corpus delicti, which is the body of the offense, the drug itself.

Procedural History

Four separate informations were filed against the accused before Branch 79 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City: three for illegal sale under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 and one for illegal possession under Section 11. Two other persons charged in related cases, Donna Del Rosario and Michael Gacilos, were allowed to plea bargain to a violation of Section 12 and were sentenced accordingly. The accused alone went to trial, pleaded not guilty, and was convicted in two cases: illegal sale of zero point thirteen gram of shabu and illegal possession of two point seventeen grams of shabu. He was acquitted in the two other sale cases because the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti, the delivered drugs not having been presented and identified in court. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court in full. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal, and the parties were directed to file supplemental briefs, both manifesting that their arguments had already been exhaustively discussed.

Facts

On the evening of September 10, 2020, a confidential informant told the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of the Quezon City Police District that a certain Amo was selling shabu along Ilocos Sur Street in Bago Bantay. A buy-bust team was formed, coordination papers were accomplished, and the informant arranged a meeting for eleven fifteen that night. The poseur buyer, Police Corporal Jevies Mallari, was introduced to the accused as the buyer, handed over a marked five-hundred-peso bill, and the accused in turn handed out three heat-sealed sachets, one each for Gacilos, for Collado, and for the poseur buyer. When the pre-arranged signal was given, the backup officers rushed in and arrested the accused, who then brought out from his pouch another sachet of suspected shabu.

The marking and the inventory were done at the place of arrest and in the presence of the accused, a barangay kagawad, and a media representative, who both signed the inventory. Photographs were taken. The seized items were then brought to the police station, where the investigator prepared the necessary requests, and a few minutes past midnight the poseur buyer personally turned the specimens over to the forensic chemist. The chemistry report confirmed that all the specimens contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The defense was denial and frame-up. The accused claimed that two men forced him into a vehicle, brought him elsewhere, mauled him when he said he did not know a certain Muktar, and later returned him to Ilocos Street where drugs were placed on the hood of a vehicle. The trial court disbelieved him and found that the poseur buyer kept custody of the seized items from recovery to turnover to the laboratory.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165.
• Whether or not the non-presentation of the confidential informant as a witness is fatal to the prosecution.
• Whether or not the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, considering that the required witnesses were not present at the actual seizure and that three hours passed before the turnover to the crime laboratory.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, on the sale of dangerous drugs, 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 (PHP 500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (PHP 10,000,000.00) 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 provision under which the accused was convicted for the sale of the sachet to the poseur buyer.

Section 11 of the same law, on the possession of dangerous drugs, provides in its third paragraph:

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (PHP 300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (PHP 400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.

This fixes the penalty for the two point seventeen grams of shabu found in the accused's possession.

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, governs the custody and disposition of seized drugs, and the Court quotes it as the standard against which the police conduct is measured:

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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.

This is the provision the accused invokes, and its final clause on justifiable grounds and preserved integrity is the heart of the ruling.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. For illegal sale, the elements are the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. For illegal possession, the elements are possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug, absence of legal authority, and free and conscious possession. The Court found all of them: the accused was caught in the act of selling a sachet of shabu to the poseur buyer for five hundred pesos, he was in control of another sachet, and both tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

On the second issue, the Court held that presenting the confidential informant is not indispensable, because the informant's testimony would merely corroborate the apprehending officer's account of the buy-bust operation.

On the third issue, the Court held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The poseur buyer had custody from confiscation to delivery to the crime laboratory, showing the specimens only briefly to the investigator for the preparation of the requests. The Court stressed that what the law demands is that the witnesses be present at the marking and inventory, not at the seizure itself, and that the accused's claim that they arrived only afterwards does not destroy the chain. As for the three-hour interval, the Court found no break, since the same officer remained in possession throughout. The Court reminded that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, bind the Supreme Court absent arbitrariness or reversible error.

Doctrine

First, in every prosecution for illegal sale, 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 its payment; in illegal possession, it must prove possession of a prohibited drug, lack of authority, and free and conscious possession.

Second, the witnesses required by Section 21, namely an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, must be present at the marking and inventory, not at the moment of seizure; their absence at the actual buy-bust is not a breach.

Third, noncompliance with Section 21 does not invalidate the seizure where there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, as the quoted proviso states.

Fourth, the confidential informant need not be presented, since the informant's testimony is merely corroborative.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs was upheld in full.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the Section 21 witnesses must witness the marking and inventory, not the seizure, and a preserved chain of custody cures a delay. Examiners use this case to test the timing of the insulating witnesses' presence and the effect of a short interval before turnover to the crime laboratory.