A.M. No. RTJ-02-1693 - Poso vs. Mijares

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1693)

Petitioner

The People of the Philippines, represented by the prosecution and the Office of the Solicitor General on appeal.

Respondent

Baida Salak y Bangkulas, criminally charged and convicted for illegal sale of a regulated drug under the Information filed May 25, 2001.

Key Dates

Alleged transaction and arrest: May 23, 2001.
Submission of specimens to NBI laboratory and qualitative certification: May 24–31, 2001.
Information filed: May 25, 2001.
RTC decision convicting appellant: February 18, 2002.
Court of Appeals decision affirming: February 21, 2007; resolution denying reconsideration July 3, 2007.
Supreme Court decision affirming CA: March 14, 2011.

Applicable Law

Primary substantive statute: Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by R.A. No. 7659 (prescribing penalty for sale, among others).
Implementing regulation at issue: Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, as amended by DDB Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990 (prescribing inventory, photographing and reporting procedures for seized drugs).
Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date is after 1990).

Factual Narrative of the Prosecution

NBI-STF received information that a person called “Baida” was selling “shabu” at Litex Market. A surveillance and buy-bust team was organized, briefed at noon and deployed to Litex Market. An NBI asset identified appellant and negotiated a sale. After appellant directed the buyer and asset to meet at McDonald’s and then to return to Litex Market, the poseur-buyer Kawada transacted with appellant inside Kawada’s vehicle. Appellant allegedly handed three heat-sealed plastic sachets contained in a larger plastic bag and received P180,000 (three marked P100 bills among the genuine money). Kawada then identified himself as an NBI operative and arrested appellant; two male companions fled. The seized sachets were marked REM-1, REM-2 and REM-3 and were submitted to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division for analysis the next morning.

Factual Narrative of the Defense

Appellant’s defense portrayed her as an innocent market vendor who accompanied acquaintances to McDonald’s and later returned to her stall. Her husband Zaldy allegedly communicated with “Boy Life” (Karim Salak) regarding a separate transaction. Appellant claimed she was forcibly taken by a group including Aminola Kawada and brought to the NBI; she alleged the possibility of extortion aimed at securing information about “Boy Life.” Defense witnesses corroborated that appellant was a vendor and described the circumstances surrounding the arrest as chaotic and coercive.

Evidence Presented

Prosecution witnesses: Kawada (poseur-buyer) and Supervising Agent Villanueva III (backup). Kawada identified the seized sachets in court and testified to marking them with his codename. Documentary and laboratory evidence: a Certification dated May 24, 2001 by NBI Forensic Chemist Juliet Gelacio-Mahilum (qualitative positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride) and a later certification (dated August 1, 2001) reporting HPLC quantitative/purity analysis with net weights for REM-1, REM-2, REM-3 totaling 305.4604 grams and an average purity of 87.99%. The prosecution did not present the buy-bust money in court; the disposition form and chain of submission to the laboratory were produced.

Procedural History

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. On September 25, 2001, after repeated failures of prosecution witnesses to appear, the trial court orally ordered a provisional dismissal, but later that same hearing the NBI witnesses arrived and the court orally recalled the dismissal and proceeded with trial. The trial court convicted appellant on February 18, 2002, sentencing her to reclusion perpetua and imposing a fine of P500,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto on February 21, 2007 and denied reconsideration. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Appellant principally argued: (1) violation of due process resulting from revival of the case after the trial court’s oral provisional dismissal; and (2) insufficiency and inconsistency of the prosecution evidence, including alleged failures to comply with DDB inventory and photographic procedures and the non-presentation of the buy-bust money, undermining the integrity and admissibility of the seized drugs.

Court’s Analysis — Recall of Provisional Dismissal and Due Process

The Court examined the oral provisional dismissal of September 25, 2001 and its subsequent oral recall. It emphasized the legal proposition that an oral order has no juridical existence until reduced to writing and promulgated (i.e., filed with the clerk, released to parties and implemented). The records showed that the purported dismissal was not reduced to writing or promulgated; the court set it aside in open court when the NBI witnesses arrived. Even if a written order had been promulgated, the court noted the inherent power of the trial judge to recall and set aside orders to conform to law and justice. On this basis the Court found no due process violation in resuming the trial.

Court’s Analysis — Compliance with Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation and Integrity of Evidence

The Court acknowledged that the NBI-STF did not strictly comply with DDB Regulation No. 3 (inventory, photographing and reportorial requirements). Citing precedent, the Court held that noncompliance with the regulation is not automatically fatal to the prosecution. The regulation’s breach is primarily a matter between the DDB and arresting officers and does not, per se, negate the consummation of the sale or the legality of the prosecution. The integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are presumed preserved absent a showing of bad faith, ill will, or tampering. Here, the Court found sufficient indicia of preservation: the seized sachets were marked by the poseur-buyer, a disposition form was prepared and noted by the NBI-STF chief, specimens were physically delivered to and received by the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division the following morning still heat-sealed, and Kawada positively identified the items in court. Appellant neither objected to admissibility during trial nor alleged tampering at trial; those contentions were raised only on appeal. The Court also considered appellant’s extortion allegation improbable given the quant

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1693)

Procedural History

Appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 21, 2007 and Resolution dated July 3, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01740, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103, Quezon City Decision dated February 18, 2002 in Criminal Case No. Q-01-100879.
Information filed May 25, 2001 charging appellant with illegal sale of a regulated drug (methamphetamine hydrochloride, “shabu”) in violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
Appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
On September 25, 2001 the trial court orally ordered provisional dismissal following repeated nonappearance of prosecution witnesses; shortly thereafter two NBI prosecution witnesses arrived and the oral order was recalled; trial proceeded.
RTC rendered judgment on February 18, 2002 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposing reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00; costs against accused.
Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto on February 21, 2007 and denied reconsideration on July 3, 2007.
Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. 181249) rendered March 14, 2011 affirming the CA and RTC decisions; costs against accused-appellant.

Parties, Key Persons and Government Agents

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
Accused-Appellant: Baida Salak y Bangkulas (also referred to as Baida Salak or Sadak).
Appellant’s husband as per defense testimony: Zaldy Pinorac.
Persons identified by witnesses: Karim Salak (introduced as appellant’s husband in the buy-bust operation), alias “Boy Life.”
NBI Special Investigators and agents involved in operation and testimony: Edgardo Kawada, Sr. (poseur-buyer, codename “Remington”), Raoul Manguerra, Atty. Cesar Bacani, Supervising Agents Rommel Vallejo and Dominador Villanueva III, Job Gayas, Charlemagne Veloso, Eric Isidro, Eduardo Villa, Rolan Fernandez.
NBI-STF Chief who issued clearance to conduct buy-bust: Atty. Max Salvador.
NBI Forensic Chemist II who performed qualitative and quantitative examinations: Juliet Gelacio-Mahilum.
Trial and appellate judges and justices noted in the record: RTC Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.; CA Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon, Edgardo F. Sundiam and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa; Supreme Court Justice Villarama, Jr., J. (opinion), Carpio Morales (Chairperson), Bersamin, Abad (designated additional member per Special Order No. 940 dated February 7, 2011) and Sereno, JJ., concurring.

Charge and Information (as alleged)

The Information dated May 25, 2001 charged that on or about May 23, 2001, in Quezon City, appellant, conspiring with other persons not yet fully identified, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, wilfully and unlawfully sold or offered for sale 305.4604 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), contrary to law (Sec. 15, Art. III, R.A. No. 6425 as amended).

Prosecution’s Factual Narrative and Buy-Bust Operation

Morning, May 23, 2001: NBI-STF received information from one of its assets that a certain “Baida” was selling shabu at Litex Market in Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City.
Team formation and surveillance: NBI-STF agents (listed above) formed a surveillance team; a briefing was held around 12:00 noon; the team proceeded to Litex Market and arrived at approximately 2:00 p.m.
Asset contact and clearances: The asset spoke with appellant and reported that appellant was in possession of shabu and willing to transact; Chief Atty. Max Salvador issued clearance to conduct a buy-bust operation and designated Special Investigator Kawada as poseur-buyer.
Meeting places and change of venue: Asset informed appellant that he had a buyer; appellant instructed asset to go to Greenwich Pizza Parlor in Fairview with the buyer, later changing instructions by phone to McDonald’s across Greenwich Pizza; Kawada and the asset complied.
Appellant’s arrival and participants: After about an hour, appellant arrived accompanied by two men introduced as her husband, Karim Salak, and “Boy Life.”
Negotiation and agreement: Kawada (poseur-buyer) and appellant discussed terms; Kawada agreed to pay P60,000 per 100 grams (total P180,000 for 300 grams appellant would supply). Kawada suggested Ever Gotesco Mall as exchange point but appellant insisted on Litex Market.
Transfer and arrest: Appellant rode with the asset and Kawada to Litex Market, alighted to retrieve the drugs and returned after 30 minutes with Karim and Boy Life carrying a plastic bag; inside Kawada’s car appellant showed three small heat-sealed plastic sachets packed inside a bigger plastic bag; appellant gave the plastic bag with three heat-sealed sachets to Kawada who gave P180,000 in genuine bills (mixed with three one-hundred peso bills earlier marked “ECK 5/23/01”); while counting the money, Kawada identified himself as an NBI operative and arrested appellant; the two male companions fled and mingled with the crowd.
Custody and submission for testing: Appellant was brought to the NBI office; the three heat-sealed sachets, marked “REM 1,” “REM 2,” and “REM 3,” were submitted by Agent Raoul Manguerra, upon Kawada’s endorsement, to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division for chemical analysis at 7:15 a.m. on May 24, 2001.
Qualitative result: Certification dated May 24, 2001 by NBI Forensic Chemist II Juliet Gelacio-Mahilum stated the white substance in REM-1, REM-2 and REM-3 (total weight 305.4604 grams) tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

Defense’s Factual Narrative and Supporting Witnesses

Morning, May 23, 2001 according to defense: Appellant and her husband Zaldy Pinorac were tending their stall at Manggahan Market (Commonwealth Avenue corner Litex Road); acquaintance Mila arrived with two companions, one introduced as Aminola Kawada, who conversed with Zaldy while appellant attended to the stall.
Errand to McDonald’s and introduction: Zaldy asked appellant to accompany Mila’s group to McDonald’s in Fairview because they wanted to buy VCDs from Boy Life (appellant’s second cousin Karim Salak); appellant complied, introduced the group to Boy Life, ate with them, then returned to the store.
Subsequent developments at the stall: Zaldy later informed appellant that Boy Life had sold 100 grams of shabu to Mila’s group; appellant was upset.
Arrest narrative per defense: Around 8:00 p.m., Boy Life was chased and later Aminola Kawada’s group, accompanied by two men, came to appellant’s stall; they forcibly took appellant and arrested Mangayao Angne who had tried to intervene; both were brought to the NBI office in Taft Avenue, Manila; Angne was released the following day.
Alleged extortion attempt: Zaldy testified he received a call from Aminola Kawada on May 24 demanding information on Boy Life’s whereabouts and allegedly asking for P300,000 (later reduced to P100,000) in exchange for appellant’s release.
Corroborative witnesses for defense: Mangrose Ampaso and Macapintal Angne, fellow vendors at Litex Market, claimed presence near appellant’s stall at the time of the NBI operatives’ alleged arrest.

Pretrial and Evidentiary Motions

On October 11, 2001, defense filed a motion requesting a quantitative or purity analysis of the shabu specimen allegedly confiscated from appellant.
RTC granted the motion and directed NBI Forensic Chemist Juliet Gelacio-Mahilum to conduct the necessary tests.

Forensic Examinations, Dates and Results

Qualitative examination: Certification dated May 24, 2001 by NBI Forensic Chemist II Juliet Gelacio-Mahilum concluded the white substance in REM-1, REM-2 and REM-3 yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride; total weight 305.4604 grams.
Quantitative (purity) analysis: Certification dated August 1, 2001 (noted in trial minutes) by NBI Forensic Chemist Gelacio-Mahilum using High Pressure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) showed:
...continue reading