Title
People vs. Torres y Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 191730
Decision Date
Jun 5, 2013
Mylene Torres was convicted for selling shabu in a buy-bust operation. Despite procedural lapses in handling evidence, the Supreme Court upheld her life sentence, ruling the drug's integrity was preserved and her guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.
illegal sale
shabu
seized drugs

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-13045)

Factual Background

On 17 January 2007, PO1 Jayson Rivera received information from an unidentified caller that a certain “Mylene,” later identified as appellant, was selling dangerous drugs in Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. Based on this tip, police conducted surveillance and casing operations. A buy-bust team was then organized. The team included PO1 Rivera as the poseur-buyer, PO1 Jeffrey Male as immediate back-up, and other assigned officers, including the team leader Police Senior Inspector Glade Esguerra, as well as a confidential informant. The buy-bust money consisted of two 100-peso bills. A Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet was prepared and sent to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for compliance with coordination requirements.

At around 3:00 p.m., the team proceeded to appellant’s house in Baltazar St., Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. They parked their vehicles approximately five meters away. PO1 Rivera and the confidential informant approached the house while the rest took positions nearby. The confidential informant immediately identified appellant. PO1 Rivera and the informant approached appellant and engaged in a brief exchange in which appellant indicated she had drugs. PO1 Rivera gave appellant the marked buy-bust money of P200.00, and appellant handed him one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.

After receiving the sachet, PO1 Rivera responded with the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head, which indicated that the sale was consummated. He then grabbed appellant, introduced himself as a police officer, and apprised her of the violation. PO1 Male, positioned nearby and witnessing the transaction from about seven to eight meters, rushed in to assist. Appellant was arrested, and PO1 Male recovered the buy-bust money from her. PO1 Rivera retained possession of the sachet until they returned to their office with appellant and the seized item for further investigation.

At the office, PO1 Rivera placed scotch tape and affixed his initials (“JLR”) on the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet before turning it over to the investigator. A Request for Laboratory Examination was prepared, and the specimen, together with the request, was brought to the crime laboratory. PS/Insp. Isidro L. Carino, Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, examined the specimen and found it positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). In court, PO1 Rivera identified the sachet presented as the same item he bought from appellant during the buy-bust operation.

Trial Court Proceedings

Appellant was charged by an information dated 19 January 2007 with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. She pleaded NOT GUILTY upon arraignment with the assistance of counsel de oficio. During the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated on the existence and due execution of the Request for Laboratory Examination and the Forensic Chemist Report, and on the existence and due execution of the Joint Affidavit of Arrest. The defense qualified that the shabu allegedly involved was not taken from appellant and that if it was taken, it was allegedly illegally obtained.

The prosecution presented PO1 Rivera and PO1 Male as witnesses. Both testified on the buy-bust operation and the arrest. The prosecution also established, through forensic evidence, that the seized substance tested positive for shabu.

Appellant, in turn, presented a defense of denial. She testified that between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. of 17 January 2007, she was sleeping on the second floor of her house. She claimed that at around 3:00 p.m., she was awakened by commotion at the stairs, saw armed police officers inside her house, and that the police ignored her as they searched the premises. She asserted that although nothing was found in her possession, she was frisked and invited to the police station. She further claimed that at the station she was incarcerated and asked about the whereabouts of a person named Allan, allegedly known for selling shabu. She denied knowing that person. She testified that she was brought to the crime laboratory and subjected to a drug test, but that the result was not made known to her.

Her testimony was corroborated by Flordeliza De Vera, appellant’s live-in partner’s daughter, who recounted that at around 3:00 p.m., she was washing clothes at the ground floor while appellant slept on the second floor. She said five police officers barged into the house, went upstairs, searched, and then took appellant. She stated that the officers were looking for Allan and brought appellant alone.

The RTC of Pasig City, Branch 154, found the prosecution witnesses credible, concluded that the elements of illegal sale of shabu were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and convicted appellant on 17 August 2007. The RTC sentenced appellant to life imprisonment and ordered her to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00.

Appellate Review and Assigned Errors

On appeal, appellant assigned two main errors. First, she argued that the RTC erred in convicting her despite failure to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, specifically the physical inventory and the taking of photographs of the seized item. Second, she contended that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to a purported break in the chain of custody. She emphasized that the sachet presented in court allegedly was not shown to be the same item seized during the buy-bust operation, creating reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in toto. It held that the prosecution established all elements of the crime, including the identity of the corpus delicti, and that the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies sufficiently established the links in the chain of custody, notwithstanding the absence of photographs and the failure to inventory the drug seized from appellant. It also found no motive on the part of the police officers other than law enforcement duty.

The Parties' Contentions Before the Supreme Court

In the Supreme Court, appellant maintained her position that non-compliance with Section 21—particularly physical inventory and photographing—was fatal. She also argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seized sachet admitted as evidence during trial was the same one seized during the buy-bust operation. She characterized these lapses as breaking the chain of custody and thus warranting acquittal.

The prosecution, as implied by the rulings below, relied on the buy-bust testimony of PO1 Rivera and PO1 Male, the forensic laboratory findings identifying the substance as shabu, and the in-court identification of the sachet by PO1 Rivera, to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were preserved.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the settled rule that factual findings of trial courts, particularly those involving witness credibility, are respected when unsupported by glaring errors or speculative conclusions. It emphasized that such deference applies with even greater force where the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

On the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the Court cited the framework requiring proof of: (one) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (two) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The Court explained that a buy-bust transaction becomes consummated when the poseur-buyer receives the drug and the seller receives the marked money.

Applying these standards, the Court held that the prosecution established the buy-bust elements beyond moral certainty. PO1 Rivera and PO1 Male testified that a buy-bust operation occurred, that appellant delivered the heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO1 Rivera in exchange for P200.00, and that appellant was arrested immediately after the sale. The Court further noted that PO1 Rivera positively identified appellant in open court as the same person who sold the shabu to him, and that the seized substance was confirmed by the laboratory as methylamphetamine hydrochloride through the Physical Sciences Report.

The Court then addressed appellant’s chain of custody argument. It underscored that in illegal sale prosecutions, the presentation of the seized drug as corpus delicti is indispensable. The Court stated that the identity of the prohibited drug must be shown with moral certainty and that the substance bought or seized during the operation must be established as the same item offered in evidence.

In this context, the Court discussed Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, which requires that after seizure and confiscation the apprehending team must physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of specified witnesses, and the Court emphasized the chain of custody rule’s purpose of protecting identity and integrity. It further explained that chain of custody is ideally supported by testimony covering each link from seizure to presentation in court, including who handled the item and the condition in which it was delivered.

However, the Court also recognized that compliance with Section 21’s physical inventory and photographing requirements is not an absolute prerequisite for admissibility. It relied on the principle drawn from the Implementing Rules and Regulations that non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as integrity and evidentiary value are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, does not render the seizure and custody void or the evidence inadmissible.

On the record, the Court found an unbroken chain of custody. It reasoned that after the sale was consummated—when appellant received the buy-bust money and delivered the sachet to PO1 Rivera—the seized item remained in PO1 Rivera’s possession until they returned to the office. Upon return, PO1 Rivera placed

...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