G.R. No. 234773 - People vs. Jodan y Amla

Case Summary (G.R. No. 234773)

Factual Background

The buy-bust operation began after Police Officer 1 (PO1) Teresita B. Reyes reported information received from a confidential informant about the illegal drug activities of a person known as “Almaser” in Barangay Culiat, Quezon City. PO1 Reyes and Police Inspector Palisoc relayed the information to their Chief, and a buy-bust team was formed. PO1 Reyes was designated as the poseur-buyer, and among the team members were Police Officer 3 (PO3) Leonardo Ramos, Jr., Police Officer 2 Joseph Ortiz, Police Officer 1 Peggylynne Vargas, and PO1 Alexander Jimenez, while Police Inspector Palisoc served as team leader.

Before the operation, PO1 Reyes prepared the buy-bust money and placed her initials “TBR” on the upper right hand portion. PO2 Ortiz prepared the pre-operation report and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which issued a certificate of coordination. PO3 Ramos testified that the team leader, SPO2 Dante Nagera, called up the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media, but no one was available at that time.

At around 6:25 a.m. on October 4, 2007, PO1 Reyes and the confidential informant went to Mujahaden Street, Salam Mosque Compound, Culiat, Quezon City, by tricycle, while the other operatives proceeded ahead. PO1 Reyes alighted in an alley with the informant and approached the man later identified as appellant Almaser. The confidential informant introduced PO1 Reyes to appellant as a shabu buyer. Appellant allegedly asked “i-iskor ka ba?” and PO1 Reyes replied “Oo, pakuha ng dos,” meaning P200.00 worth. Appellant allegedly took the money, handed PO1 Reyes a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, and PO1 Reyes executed the pre-arranged signal by touching her right ear.

The rest of the buy-bust team then approached. PO3 Ramos searched appellant’s pocket and recovered the buy-bust money and two more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO1 Reyes marked the sachet she bought from appellant with her initials “TBR”, while PO3 Ramos marked the two additional sachets using his initials “LRR-10-04-07” and “LRR 10-04-07-1,” and also marked the buy-bust money. An inventory receipt was prepared at the scene and signed by the officers present. The team later brought appellant and the seized items to the police station. The seized items and the inventory receipt were turned over to investigator PO1 Jimenez, who prepared the request for laboratory examination. PO2 Ortiz delivered the request letter and the specimens to the crime laboratory. The items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride based on Chemistry Report No. D-345-07 issued by Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector Banac.

Appellant denied the charge. He claimed that at around 6:00 a.m. of October 4, 2007, he was sleeping with his family in a rented house in Culiat when someone kicked the door and four men entered shouting “mga pulis kami.” He alleged that the police rummaged the belongings, pointed a gun at him, and handcuffed him. Appellant stated that one officer demanded P30,000.00, and when he said he had no relatives in Metro Manila and no money, the police uttered “pano yan tutuluyan ka na namin,” after which he was detained and brought for inquest. He maintained that he first saw the arresting officers on that day and had no previous quarrel with them.

RTC Proceedings and Judgment

The RTC convicted appellant of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and imposed life imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000.00, plus costs. It found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized were properly preserved. The RTC emphasized that the arresting officers immediately marked the drugs at the site and that the marked sachets were submitted for chemical analysis, which yielded positive results. It further held that prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant as the person who sold and possessed the shabu presented in court and that the buy-bust transaction was successfully consummated when the delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer occurred and the seller received the marked money. The RTC ruled that the prosecution proved the corpus delicti because it perceived no substantial gaps in the chain of custody. It also applied the presumption that the police officers performed their duties regularly, and it found appellant’s denial unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

CA Proceedings and Affirmance

On appeal, the CA denied appellant’s challenge and affirmed the RTC. The CA held that the integrity of the drugs seized remained unscathed. It reasoned that PO1 Reyes had custody of the dangerous drugs from the time she recovered them up to the police station where she turned them over to the desk officer, and that the assigned investigator prepared the laboratory request while PO2 Ortiz delivered the specimens to the crime laboratory. The CA also found no showing of tampering before delivery to the forensic chemist. On appellant’s point concerning the failure to present the desk officer, the CA ruled that it was not necessary for all persons who had contact with the seized drugs to testify, so long as the chain of custody was shown to be unbroken and the prosecution properly identified the items seized.

Appellate Issue Before the Supreme Court

Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that both the RTC and the CA erred in convicting him. He argued that the prosecution failed to comply with the required procedures on the custody and seizure of dangerous drugs under Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and Article II, Section 21(a) of the IRR. He also claimed that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody from the poseur-buyer to the investigator and up to the forensic chemist.

Legal Basis: Elements and the Centrality of Corpus Delicti

The Court reiterated that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. It emphasized that the corpus delicti is essential to conviction, and that in drug cases the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly established. It then explained that chain of custody is crucial because it refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of the seized drugs from the time of seizure or confiscation, to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping, and to presentation in court for destruction.

The Court underscored that the rule is imperative to ensure that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the same substance offered in court. It stated that the identity of the drug must be established with unwavering exactitude and that the prosecution must therefore comply with the safeguards enacted to prevent planting of evidence and frame-up.

Statutory Safeguards Under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and the IRR

The Court quoted Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which sets out safeguards for the handling of seized dangerous drugs. Under the original version applicable to the alleged offense in 2007, the apprehending team with initial custody and control had to, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused (or his representative or counsel), a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official who would be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given copies thereof. The Court also cited Section 21(a) of the IRR, which elaborated on the place where inventory and photographing should occur and contained a saving clause for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

The Court noted that R.A. No. 10640 later amended Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and incorporated the saving clause, but it applied the original witness requirements because appellant’s alleged offense occurred in 2007.

Failure to Prove Compliance With Section 21 Witness Requirements and Photographs

The Court found a decisive gap. It stated that the record failed to show that photographs of the drugs inventoried were taken and were done in the presence of the required witnesses under the original Section 21. PO3 Ramos testified that the only document executed was an inventory receipt, and he admitted that the inventory receipt contained only the signatures of police officers, with appellant having no signature because the police forgot to ask him to sign. The Court treated this as evidence of a failure to show strict compliance with the mandatory procedures.

While the Court acknowledged that failure to strictly comply with Section 21 and the IRR did not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody if the prosecution established justifiable grounds for non-compliance and proved that integrity and evidentiary value were preserved, it required that the prosecution satisfactorily prove those justifiable grounds.

The Prosecution’s Alleged Justifiable Ground Was Not Proven

The Court scrutinized the prosecution’s offered explanation. PO3 Ramos testified that before the buy-bust operation, the team leader called the DOJ and the media, but nobody was available. However, on cross-examination, PO3 Ramos admitted he had no personal knowledge about the alleged call and stated he had only been told that nobody was available. The Court held that such testimony, lacking personal knowledge, had hearsay character for the pu

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 234773)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines acted as plaintiff-appellee, while Almaser Jodan y Amla acted as accused-appellant.
The appeal assailed the Decision dated June 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08262, which affirmed the Judgment dated June 19, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 78.
The RTC judgment convicted appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Information and Charge

The Information dated January 4, 2008 charged appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The charge alleged that on or about October 4, 2007 in Quezon City, appellant, without lawful authority, willfully and unlawfully sold, traded, administered, dispensed, delivered, gave away, distributed, dispatched in transit or transported, or acted as broker in a transaction involving zero point zero three (0.03) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, known as “SHABU.”

Appellant’s Plea and Trial

Appellant, duly assisted by counsel, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
Pre-trial and trial proceeded after the plea.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented witnesses including PO3 Leonardo Ramos, Jr., PO1 Alexander Jimenez, PO1 Teresita B. Reyes, and Police Chief Inspector Bernardino Banac, Jr..
The prosecution established that on October 3, 2007, PO1 Reyes was on duty at Camp Karingal, Quezon City, when a confidential informant (CI) gave information to a Police Inspector Palisoc concerning illegal drug activity by an alias “Almaser” in Barangay Culiat, Quezon City.
PO1 Reyes and Police Inspector Palisoc advised their chief and formed a buy-bust team with PO1 Reyes as poseur-buyer and with other operatives including PO3 Ramos and PO1 Jimenez.
PO1 Reyes prepared the buy-bust money, placing her initials “TBR” on the upper right-hand portion.
PO2 Ortiz prepared a pre-operation report and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which issued a certificate of coordination.
The buy-bust team proceeded to the target area, with PO1 Reyes and the CI arriving at 6:25 a.m. on October 4, 2007 at Mujahaden Street, Salam Mosque Compound, Culiat, Quezon City, while other operatives had gone ahead.
Appellant was approached in an alley and was identified as the man introduced to poseur-buyer PO1 Reyes as a shabu seller.
The CI introduced PO1 Reyes to appellant as a shabu buyer, and appellant asked “i-iskor ka ba?” to which she replied “Oo, pakuha ng dos,” meaning P200.00 worth.
Appellant took P200.00 from PO1 Reyes and handed her a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
PO1 Reyes executed the pre-arranged signal by touching her right ear, prompting the rest of the team to approach and identify themselves as police officers.
PO3 Ramos searched appellant’s pocket and recovered the buy-bust money and two more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance.
At the crime scene, PO1 Reyes marked the sachet she bought with her initials “TBR,” while PO3 Ramos marked the two additional sachets using initials including “LRR-10-04-07” and “LRR 10-04-07-1,” and also marked the buy-bust money.
An inventory receipt was prepared at the crime scene and signed by PO3 Ramos and other policemen.
The team brought appellant and the seized items to the police station, where the seized items and inventory receipt were turned over to investigator PO1 Jimenez for laboratory examination.
PO2 Ortiz delivered the specimens to the crime laboratory for testing.
The specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride per Chemistry Report No. D-345-07, issued by Police Chief Inspector Bernardino Banac, Jr. as Forensic Chemist.

Defense Evidence

Appellant denied the charge and testified that at about 6:00 a.m. of October 4, 2007, he was sleeping with his family in a rented house in Culiat, Quezon City.
Appellant claimed that several men kicked the door, shouted “mga pulis kami,” rummaged their belongings, and handcuffed him after one of the policemen pointed a gun.
Appellant stated that his children were crying, his wife was in shock, and he was taken outside and loaded into a private vehicle for detention.
Appellant alleged that at the precinct, PO1 Jimenez demanded P30,000.00, and when appellant said he had no relatives in Metro Manila and no money, the police threatened that he would remain detained.
Appellant claimed he only saw the policemen who arrested him for the first time on that day and denied any previous quarrel with them.
The defense did not produce evidence addressing the integrity of the seized items and laboratory testing.

RTC’s Findings

The RTC held that the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The RTC found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs were preserved because the arresting officers immediately marked the drugs at the site and the marked sachets were sent for chemical analysis that yielded a positive result.
The RTC found positive identification of appellant as the seller who delivered the shabu to the poseur-buyer and possessed the marked contraband.
The RTC ruled that the delivery of the contraband and receipt of the marked money consummated the buy-bust transaction.
The RTC concluded that the prosecution complied with proof of corpus delicti because there were no substantial gaps in the chain of custody affecting authenticity.
The RTC invoked the presumption that police officers performed their duties regularly.
The RTC found appellant’s denial unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
The RTC sentenced appellant to life imprisonment, imposed a fine of Php500,000.00, awarded costs, and ordered transmittal of the dangerous drug to the PDEA for destruction or disposition.

CA’s Ruling

The CA affirmed the RTC decision.
The CA found that the integrity of the drugs remained intact because PO1 Reyes had custody from recovery up to turn over at the police station, the investigator prepared the laboratory request, and PO2 Ortiz personally delivered the specimens to the crime laboratory for examination.
The CA found no showing of tampering before delivery to the forensic chemist.
The CA ruled that the non-presentation of the desk officer