G.R. No. 234821 - People vs. Pacnisen y Bumacas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 234821)

Factual Background

The Information charged that on September 18, 2012, at Brgy. Urbiztondo, Municipality of San Juan, Province of La Union, the accused, without the necessary permit, willfully and unlawfully sold to a poseur-buyer two bricks of marijuana with individual net weights of 1857.16 grams and 852.19 grams, totaling 2709.35 grams, in consideration of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00). The prosecution's evidence traced the operation to a confidential informant who reported to Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency agents that the accused was selling marijuana and had agreed to a P6,000.00 transaction. A buy-bust team led by Agent Dexter Asayco with Agent Efren Esmin as poseur-buyer executed the operation at an agreed vacant lot, where Agent Esmin purportedly handed the buy-bust money to the accused and received a plastic bag containing two packaged bricks. The team performed a body search, conducted inventory and markings in the presence of the barangay captain and a media representative, photographed the seized items, and delivered them to PDEA forensic chemist Lei-Yen Valdez, who issued Chemistry Report No. PDEAROI-DDO12-0025 finding the items positive for marijuana.

Defense Version

The accused maintained that he had been at a market, then rode a bus to meet a woman named Liza to fetch clothes for his former partner Maida. He alleged that Liza handed him a plastic bag to hold, left to relieve herself, and that he was suddenly accosted, choked, handcuffed, and accused of selling the marijuana found inside the bag. The accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment and offered denial and an alibi at trial.

Trial Court Proceedings

At trial the prosecution presented testimony from the buy-bust team, photographs of the inventory, and the chemistry report. The Regional Trial Court, presided by Judge Victor O. Concepcion, found that the prosecution established the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the delivery and receipt of payment. The RTC discredited the accused’s denial as self-serving and convicted him of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment, imposing a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), ordering forfeiture of the seized bricks, and directing their transmittal to the PDEA for disposition.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

On appeal the accused contended that the prosecution failed to prove that a legitimate buy-bust took place and failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. He emphasized that only Agent Esmin testified for the buy-bust operation, that there was no prior surveillance or test buy, and that no Department of Justice representative was present at the inventory to sign the documents or attest to custody. The accused also reasserted his alibi and denial.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision. The CA found that the prosecution established the elements of illegal sale by proving that the transaction occurred and by presenting the seized drugs as evidence. The CA gave credence to the prosecution witnesses, held that the informant’s testimony would have been merely corroborative, and ruled that the absence of a DOJ representative did not vitiate the integrity of the seized drugs where the prosecution established continuity of custody from the apprehending agent to the forensic chemist and then to the court. The CA further held that lack of prior surveillance did not render the buy-bust illegal, citing precedent that prior surveillance is not always necessary when a confidential informant accompanied the operatives or when exigency required prompt action.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the RTC and the CA erred in convicting the accused. Specifically, whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the sale transpired and that the corpus delicti — the dangerous drugs — was presented and preserved according to Section 21, RA 9165, including whether the deviation from the inventory requirements was justified and whether the chain of custody remained intact.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, were entitled to respect in the absence of substantial contrary evidence. The Court found that the prosecution proved the essential elements of illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165: that the transaction took place and that the drugs constituting the corpus delicti were presented in court. The Court accepted the prosecution’s explanation for the nonappearance of a DOJ representative at the inventory, concluding that the officers exerted earnest efforts to secure all required witnesses and that urgency and the short time window between receiving the informant’s tip and conducting the operation justified the deviation.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Section 21

The Court reiterated that Section 21 requires immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative, and that those procedures are matters of substantive law designed to preserve the evidentiary integrity of seized items. The Court acknowledged, however, that the Implementing Rules permit the inventory to be conducted at the nearest police station or at the office of the apprehending team in warrantless arrests, but stressed that the required witnesses should be physically present at the time of seizure or as near the place of apprehension as practicable. The Court then applied its jurisprudence as in People v. Lim, People v. Ramos, and People v. Umipang, holding that absence of a required witness does not automatically render the evidence inadmissible when the prosecution establishes justifiable grounds for non-compliance and demonstrates earnest efforts to secure those witnesses. The Court found that Agent Esmin’s testimony about a two-hour interval from the informant’s tip to the operation, and the attempt by a colleague to contact a DOJ representative who was unavailable, sufficiently explained the absence of a DOJ representative.

Chain of Custody Finding

The Supreme Court found an unbroken chain of custody from the apprehending agent to the forensic chemist and thereafter to the court. The Court observed that after the inventory and markings, the seized items were submitted to the PDEA forensic laboratory within the twenty-four-hour periods mandated by Section 21, that the forensic chemist issued Chemistry Report No. PDEAROI-DDO12-0025 on the same day confirming the presence of marijuana, and that the items were thereafter kept in the chemist’s evidence vault with restricted access. On th

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 234821)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines prosecuted the case against Bobby Pacnisen y Bumacas for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II, RA 9165.
The accused pleaded not guilty and underwent pre-trial and trial in the Regional Trial Court, City of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 66, in Criminal Case No. 9665.
The RTC rendered a Decision dated March 30, 2016 convicting the accused, which the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals issued a Decision dated June 21, 2017 affirming the RTC, prompting the accused to file an ordinary appeal before the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 234821.
The Supreme Court resolved the appeal in a decision promulgated on November 07, 2018.

Key Factual Allegations

The prosecution alleged that on September 18, 2012 a confidential informant coordinated a buy-bust with PDEA agents to purchase PHP 6,000 worth of marijuana from the accused at a vacant lot between Pentecostal Missionary Church and Ozoteo Building in Brgy. Urbiztondo, San Juan, La Union.
PDEA Agent Efren E. Esmin acted as the poseur-buyer and handed the accused buy-bust money composed of one genuine PHP 1,000 bill and five marked boodle bills.
The accused allegedly delivered two packaged bricks which were subsequently partly opened to show the contents, and Agent Esmin signaled the arrest by wiping his sweat with a handkerchief.
An inventory and marking of the seized items were conducted in the presence of Barangay Captain Erickson N. Valdriz and DXNL anchor Dominador Dacanay, and photographs were taken.
The seized bricks weighed individually 1,857.16 grams and 852.19 grams for a total of 2,709.35 grams and were submitted to forensic chemist Lei-Yen Valdez whose Chemistry Report No. PDEAROI-DDO12-0025 dated September 18, 2012 tested positive for marijuana.
The accused countered with a denial and an alibi that he was given a plastic bag by a third person named Liza and was subsequently seized by unidentified men who accused him of selling the marijuana.

Trial Court Findings

The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The RTC held that the prosecution proved the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the delivery and receipt of the consideration.
The RTC found the accused’s denial and alibi self-serving and rejected them for lack of credibility.
The RTC ordered the forfeiture of the two bricks of marijuana in favor of the government and directed transmission to the PDEA for disposition.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed the RTC Decision and sustained the conviction in its June 21, 2017 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08271.
The CA credited the testimony of the poseur-buyer and the other prosecution evidence to establish the occurrence of the sale, the identity of the parties, and the consideration.
The CA held that the prosecution was not obliged to present the confidential informant because such testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative.
The CA found that the chain of custody under Section 21, RA 9165 was established as unbroken from the poseur-buyer to the forensic chemist and thence to the court despite the absence of a DOJ representative at the inventory.
The CA ruled that