Title
People vs. Capco y Sabadlab
Case
G.R. No. 183088
Decision Date
Sep 17, 2009
Accused-appellant convicted for illegal sale of shabu in a buy-bust operation; SC upheld conviction despite lapses in chain of custody, affirming integrity of evidence and presumption of regularity.
illegal sale of shabu
life imprisonment
handling of evidence

Case Summary (G.R. No. 183088)

Charges Filed and Arraignment

The prosecution filed two separate informations before the RTC. In Criminal Case No. 03-3233, Capco was charged that, on or about August 21, 2003, in Makati City, he willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sold, distributed and transported zero point zero three (0.03) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) in consideration of one hundred (P100.00) pesos, without authority of law. In Criminal Case No. 03-3561, Capco was charged that on the same date and place he was not lawfully authorized to use or take dangerous drugs, and that after a confirmatory test he was found positive for the use of methylamphetamine, a dangerous drug.

At arraignment on September 10, 2003, Capco entered a not guilty plea for the sale charge. He later pleaded guilty when arraigned for the use charge and was sentenced to undergo six (6) months rehabilitation, with the execution deferred due to the pendency of the sale case.

Trial Evidence: Prosecution’s Account of the Buy-Bust

During trial, the prosecution presented PO2 Vicente Barrameda and PO1 Randy Santos. Their account, as reflected in the CA decision, was that operatives of the Makati City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (AID-SOTF), acting on a confidential informant’s tip, conducted a buy-bust operation around 8:30 in the evening on August 21, 2003 in the vicinity of Dapitan St., Brgy. Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City, with Capco as the target. PO2 Barrameda acted as poseur-buyer and, using P100 in marked money, purchased one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. After the transaction, PO2 Barrameda signaled the arrest team by ringing PO1 Santos’ mobile phone. The team then arrested Capco and brought him to the Makati AID-SOTF station. From there, Capco and the seized item were brought to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City for drug test and qualitative examination. The chemistry report later confirmed that both Capco’s urine and the seized specimen were positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Defense Evidence: Denial and Alleged Extortion

Capco’s defense rested mainly on denial and an account that he was seized by unidentified persons. He claimed that after alighting from a tricycle in front of his house coming from Guadalupe Market on August 23, 2003, he noticed a commotion and saw four men chasing some people at a basketball court on Dapitan Street. He alleged that he was suddenly dragged into a vehicle parked at Kalayaan Avenue and asked about a certain “Gary” whom he did not know. When he could not provide information, he claimed he was brought to the Office of the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU), where the DEU Chief asked P10,000 for his release.

His testimony was corroborated by Ace Bernal. Bernal testified that while playing basketball with his cousins on Dapitan Street, Makati City, several men arrived, inquired about “Gary,” chased someone who escaped, and subsequently brought out Capco and took him to a vehicle at Kalayaan Avenue.

RTC Decision: Conviction for Illegal Sale and Implementation for Drug Use

In its decision dated February 1, 2006, the RTC found Capco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 03-3233, imposing life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.

As to Criminal Case No. 03-3561, the RTC’s fallo included a mechanism for implementation of the judgment for Section 15, Article II. Considering the sentence already imposed for the sale charge, Capco was sentenced to undergo rehabilitation for at least six (6) months in a drug rehabilitation program under the auspices of the Bureau of Correction. The RTC directed the clerk of court to transmit the one (1) piece of plastic sachet of shabu weighing 0.03 gram to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for appropriate disposition.

CA Proceedings and Ruling on Appeal

Capco appealed to the CA, contesting the conviction on grounds that: (a) the trial convicted him despite alleged inadmissibility of evidence and the prosecution’s failure to present the confidential informant, and (b) the prosecution failed to establish the prohibited nature of the drug and the chain of custody.

The CA, in a decision dated December 28, 2007, affirmed the RTC. It held that the informant’s presentation was not indispensable, noting that the informant’s testimony would be corroborative and cumulative, and that informants are generally not presented to conceal identity and protect their service to law enforcement. On the chain of custody issue, the CA ruled that the non-presentation of certain personnel who received the shabu and performed parts of handling did not affect the prosecution’s case because the chain of custody had not been broken.

Issues on Further Review

On further review, Capco asked the Supreme Court to reverse his conviction based on three consolidated issues: first, that the CA erred in affirming conviction despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to present the informant; second, that the evidence was inadmissible due to alleged violation of Section 21 of RA 9165; and third, that the prosecution failed to prove the prohibited nature of the seized item and failed to establish the chain of custody of the specimen.

Non-Presentation of the Confidential Informant

The Court held that Capco’s argument did not warrant reversal. The Court explained that the non-presentation of a confidential informant does not amount to suppression of evidence. It relied on People v. Penaflorida, Jr. (G.R. No. 175604, April 10, 2008) for the proposition that the presentation of an informant is not essential for conviction because the informant’s testimony would ordinarily be merely corroborative and cumulative. The Court further explained that informants are often not presented to protect their identities and their continued usefulness to law enforcement, given the danger of reprisal from drug syndicates and their allies.

Alleged Violation of Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165

Capco also alleged that the buy-bust team violated Section 21(1) of RA 9165 because, upon his arrest, the operatives allegedly did not take his photograph together with the seized shabu and allegedly failed to conduct a physical inventory in his presence or in the presence of required representatives, including media and DOJ, and any elected public official, as the statutory provision contemplates.

The Court stated the general rule that non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically render the arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible. The Court emphasized that the controlling concern is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. It then found that the integrity and evidentiary value were preserved in this case, which led it to reject Capco’s claim of inadmissibility.

Chain of Custody: Handling, Marking, and Forensic Identification

Capco further contended that the prosecution failed to present the personnel who touched or had physical possession of the suspected illegal item from seizure until its presentation in court or until forensic examination. The Court agreed with the CA that the prosecution had shown that the chain of custody was not broken.

The Court reviewed the records and noted the following sequence. After the successful buy-bust transaction, PO2 Barrameda marked the plastic sachet of suspected shabu with “DSC.” A letter-request signed by Police Superintendent Jose Ramon Q. Salido was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Forensic Chemist Grace M. Eustaquio filed Chemistry Report No. D-1049-03, finding the substance positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. During trial, PO2 Barrameda identified the specimen as the shabu seized from Capco and later marked with “DSC.” PO1 Santos corroborated Barrameda by testifying that the specimen marked “DSC” was indeed the product of their buy-bust operation.

The Court underscored that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, material proof requires proof that the sale or transaction actually took place and the presentation in court of the traded substance as the object evidence constituting the corpus delicti. The Court held that these requirements were met. It also invoked the presumption that the integrity of evidence is preserved absent a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof of tampering. The Court stated that Capco had the burden to show tampering or meddling to overcome the presumption of regularity. It found that Capco failed to make such a showing.

Presumption of Regularity and Rejection of Denial

The Court further noted that in drug pushing or possession cases, the testimony of the police officers on what transpired before, during, and after the accused was caught, as well as the manner by which evidence was preserved, is decisive. The Court held that such testimonies in open court are accorded faith, guided by the presumption that law enforcement officers performed their duties regularly, absent proof to the contrary. It added that in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute serious wrongdoing, the presumption of regularity and the trial court’s credibility findings prevail over the accused’s self-serving and uncorroborated denial. The Court found that Capco failed to provide a credible explanation for why he was allegedly falsely accused.

Penalty and Disposition

Because Capco was convicted under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the Court restated that the law imposes life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 upon any person who, without legal authorization, sells or otherwise distributes or transports dangerous drugs, among other acts. The Court held that the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 conformed with the penal provisio

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms