Title
People vs. Pundugar
Case
G.R. No. 214779
Decision Date
Feb 7, 2018
A buy-bust operation led to appellant's arrest for selling and possessing shabu. Despite procedural lapses, the court upheld his conviction, rejecting his denial and frame-up claims.
illegal sale
illegal possession
dangerous drugs
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 214779)

Factual Background

At about 4:30 p.m. on May 24, 2008, a police informant reported to the Anti-illegal Drugs office of Muntinlupa City that a person known as “Tatay,” later identified as the appellant, was dealing in illegal drugs at Purok 7, Brgy. Alabang, Muntinlupa City. Based on that information, a team was formed to conduct surveillance and a possible buy-bust operation, with PO2 Domingo Julaton III (PO2 Julaton) designated as the poseur-buyer, and PO2 Elbert Ocampo (PO2 Ocampo) assigned as back-up. After coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), PO2 Julaton was given five pieces of 100 peso bills as buy-bust money.

PO2 Julaton and the informant went to the target area. From a distance of about 10 meters, the surveillance team observed the appellant conversing with two companions. The informant introduced PO2 Julaton to the appellant as a seaman who wanted to “score.” The appellant asked how much the buyer would purchase, and PO2 Julaton responded that he wanted 500 pesos worth. When PO2 Julaton handed over the buy-bust money, the appellant delivered a sachet of shabu to PO2 Julaton. During the transaction, PO2 Julaton also saw the appellant give a plastic sachet to each companion. After the sale, PO2 Julaton gave a pre-arranged signal to PO2 Ocampo to indicate that the transaction had been consummated.

When PO2 Ocampo arrived, PO2 Julaton held the appellant’s hand, introduced himself as a police officer, and arrested him. PO2 Julaton ordered the appellant to bring out what was in his pocket. The appellant complied, and PO2 Julaton recovered four more plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance, together with the buy-bust money. PO2 Ocampo arrested the appellant’s companions and confiscated from them two pieces of plastic sachets. The group was brought to the police station.

At the station, PO2 Julaton marked the sachet sold to him as “AB,” and marked the four sachets recovered from the appellant’s pocket as “AB-1,” “AB-2,” “AB-3,” and “AB-4.” He took photographs of the items in front of the appellant, and an inventory of the seized drugs was prepared. A request for laboratory examination followed, and PO2 Julaton and PO2 Ocampo brought the appellant and the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory. PSI Mark Alain B. Ballesteros (PSI Ballesteros), a forensic chemist, personally received the specimens and the request for laboratory examination. Chemistry Report No. D-219-08 showed that the specimen recovered from the appellant tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

Defense Version

The appellant denied both the alleged sale and the possession of shabu. He testified that at about 4:00 p.m. of May 24, 2008, he was attending to his store with his daughter, Noramida “Lily” Pundugar (Noramida). He claimed that when he heard people shouting that policemen were coming, he went out, was suddenly handcuffed, and brought to the police station. He further alleged that at the station he was shown plastic sachets containing shabu and was told to give P600,000.00, otherwise he would be charged and remain in jail. Noramida corroborated his narration and stated that nothing was recovered from the appellant or from inside their store after a search.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC gave credence to the prosecution witnesses. It held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling dangerous drugs to a law enforcement agent who acted as the poseur-buyer. It also found that a subsequent search yielded four more sachets from the appellant’s person, and that laboratory examination confirmed that the seized substances were positive for shabu. The RTC rejected the appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-up.

On this basis, the RTC convicted the appellant in Criminal Case No. 08-370 for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Php 500,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 08-371, it convicted him of violation of Section 11 of RA 9165, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum, and a fine of Php 300,000.00.

Arguments on Appeal and Issues Raised

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He also contended that the apprehending police officers failed to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations, resulting in a broken chain of custody over the confiscated drugs. He maintained that these lapses undermined the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals denied the appeal. It ruled that there was no reason to doubt the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs, as the apprehending officers preserved the seized items. It also observed that the appellant did not attribute any motive to the officers that could explain why they would falsely testify against him, and it therefore upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of the Elements of the Crimes

The Supreme Court found the appeal devoid of merit. It reiterated the elements for a successful prosecution of illegal sale of drugs in a buy-bust operation: (1) proof of the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration, and (2) proof of the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The Court held that the essential proof lay in showing that the transaction actually took place, together with the presentation of the corpus delicti as evidence.

The Court found that the prosecution established these elements. It held that PO2 Julaton was positively identified as the poseur-buyer and the appellant was identified as the seller who sold a sachet of shabu for P500.00. The sachet presented in court was identified by PO2 Julaton as the one purchased from the appellant. Laboratory examination by PSI Ballesteros showed that the seized substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. On the basis of delivery of the illicit drug and receipt of the buy-bust money, the Court held that the illegal sale was consummated.

For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the Supreme Court noted the elements as: (1) possession of an item identified to be a prohibited drug, (2) lack of legal authority, and (3) free and conscious possession. The Court held that, upon lawful arrest arising from the buy-bust operation, the appellant was found to have in his possession four more plastic sachets of shabu. The appellant failed to show legal authority to possess the items, and because he offered no explanation for such possession, the Court treated the situation as giving rise to a prima facie indication of knowledge or animus possidendi.

Chain of Custody and Compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165

The Supreme Court emphasized that in drug cases the presentation of the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti, and proof must show that the exhibit offered in court is the same substance subject of the offense. It stated that the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 perform the function of ensuring the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, thereby removing doubts as to identity.

The appellant invoked the alleged failure to mark and make an inventory of the seized items at the crime scene immediately upon arrest, claiming that marking at the police station instead created a gap. The Court rejected this argument. It held that failure to strictly comply with the procedures on inventory and marking does not automatically render the seizure illegal or make the seized items inadmissible. The Court reasoned that the primordial concern remains the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the items, which must be proven to establish the corpus delicti.

The Court found that the marking at the police station did not impair the prosecution’s case. It held that after PO2 Julaton received one plastic sachet and confiscated four additional sachets from the appellant, PO2 Julaton immediately brought the items to the police station, where they were marked “AB,” “AB-1,” “AB-2,” “AB-3,” and “AB-4.” He then forwarded the duly marked items to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The Court further held that forensic chemist PSI Ballesteros personally received the marked specimens and that laboratory examination confirmed positive results for shabu. At trial, PO2 Julaton positively identified the items as those sold and those recovered from the appellant’s possession. The Court therefore concluded that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody and preserved integrity and evidentiary value.

The Court also addressed the appellant’s argument regarding the absence of representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official during the inventory and photography. It quoted Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, which required inventory and photographs to be conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, and in the presence of an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who must sign the inventory, and it contained a saving clause allowing noncompliance under justifiable grounds so long as integrity and evidentiary value were preserved.

The Court further relied on the Guidelines on the implementing rules, which stated that strict compliance with the witness requirements was not mandated and that, under the saving clause, noncompliance under justifiable grounds would not render the seizure invalid if integrity and evidentiary value were preserved. It noted that while the prosecution did not invite the required representatives, it presented reasons: the operation occurred around 6:20 p.m. in a squatters’ area, and th

...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