Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 196008 (People of the Philippines v. Mohamad Ibrahim y Maliga). - We review the decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03598, which affirmed the decision^[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Malabon City, finding Mohamad Ibrahim y Maliga (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

In its decision of June 15, 2007, the RTC found the appellant guilty of illegal sale of 48.55 grams of shabu, penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC disregarded the appellant's claim that the shabu had been planted, and held that the police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties. The RTC added that "planting of evidence" is a usual and standard defense in prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Accordingly, it ordered the appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a P500,000.00 fine.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. It found the testimony of the poseur-buyer Police Officer (PO)1 Allan Fernandez, as credible, and ruled that the inconsistencies in his statements referred merely to insignificant details. The appellate court also ruled that the prosecution was able to show an unbroken link in the chain of custody over the confiscated shabu.

Our Ruling 

The appellant's conviction stands.

For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.^[3]

Our examination of the records confirms the presence of all these elements. PO1 Fernandez narrated in detail how a confidential informant set up the meeting between him and the appellant; and how he and PO2 Jose Estacio, Jr. conducted the buy-bust operation. PO1 Fernandez positively identified the appellant as the person who sold to him one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substances in exchange for the marked money. The white crystalline substances contained in the plastic sachet were examined and confirmed to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, per Physical Science Report No. D-547-04^[4] issued by the Philippine National Police (PNP) Forensic Chemist, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Erickson Calabocal. Notably, the appellant did not impute any ill motive on the part of PO1 Fernandez to falsely testify against him and accuse him of a grave offense. In fact, the appellant declared on the witness stand that he had no disagreement with the police prior to his arrest.

Aside from the testimony of PO1 Fernandez, the fact that an actual buy-bust operation took place was also evidenced by the presented documentary evidence consisting of the marked moneys used in the operation (Exhibits "E", "E-1" and "E-2"),^[5] the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet (Exhibit "J"),^[6] the Affidavit of the Poseur-Buyer (Exhibit "L"),^[7]  and the Affidavit of Arrest (Exhibit "I").^[8]

After a careful reading of the records, we also find that the chain of custody over the confiscated shabu was not shown to have been broken. "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."^[9] 

In the present case, the evidence shows that after PO1 Fernandez received the plastic sachet from the appellant, he and PO2 Estacio brought the appellant and the seized item to the police station. Upon arrival, PO1 Fernandez marked the plastic sachet with "ACF-1/08-10-04" representing his initials and the date of confiscation. The members of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs, Specialty Operations Task Group then conducted an inventory of the seized items, witnessed by media representative Maeng Santos and Barangay Chairman Victor Trinidad. Thereafter, the police presented the appellant and the seized items to Mayor Canuto Oreta who, in turn, signed the inventory sheet. The police also took photographs of the appellant and the seized items at Mayor Oreta's office. On the same day, Police Senior Inspector (P/Sr. Insp.) Eddie Regalado prepared a request for laboratory examination; PO1 Fernandez delivered this request, together with the seized items, to the PNP Crime Laboratory for a qualitative analysis. P/Insp. Calabocal examined the contents of the plastic sachet marked with "ACF-1/08-10-04" and found them positive for the presence of shabu. This finding was approved by P/Sr. Insp. Albert Arturo; Chief of the Physical Science Section of the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office. Significantly, PO1 Fernandez also identified the plastic sachet in court to be the same item he seized from the appellant.

In sum, the prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were first confiscated until they were brought in the laboratory for examination and presented in court. The sequence of events established by evidence shows that the police complied with the procedures mandated by law for the proper safekeeping and custody of the seized drug. The integrity and the evidentiary value of the shabu seized from the appellant were therefore duly proven not to have been compromised.

We also find unpersuasive the appellant's defense of denial, as he failed to substantiate this defense. Denial is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution, particularly when the witness' testimony is found by the courts a quo to be credible and convincing.

Finally, we affirm the rulings of the RTC and the CA, imposing the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 on the appellant as these are the penalties provided for by law.^[10]cralaw

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby AFFIRM the November 24, 2010 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03598.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda.

^[2] CA rollo, pp. 25-30. 

^[3] See People of the Philippines v. Manuel Cruz y Cruz, G.R. No. 187047, June 15, 2011; People v. Andres, G.R. No. 193184, February 7, 2011, 641 SCRA 602, 608; and People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 263-264.

^[4] Records, p. 7. 

^[5] Id. at 37. 

^[6] Id. at 29. 

^[7] Id. at 3. 

^[8] Id. at 4. 

^[9] Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drug Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002. 

^[10] Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 reads:

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.