Case Summary (G.R. No. 258316)
Procedural History
Accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment. After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. The RTC rendered a consolidated decision finding accused guilty of illegal sale (Section 5, RA 9165) and illegal possession (Section 11, RA 9165) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fines for sale, and to a prison term and fine for possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the entire record.
Charges and Accusatory Allegations
Two informations charged accused with: (1) Illegal sale — alleged sale of one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (0.02 g) to a poseur-buyer on 27 September 2017; and (2) Illegal possession — alleged possession of six heat-sealed sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (various weights totaling several small fractions of a gram) on the same date. The informations allege lack of authority to sell or possess the drugs.
Prosecution’s Version of the Facts
A confidential informant reported accused’s alleged illegal drug activities. PSI Pereja organized a buy-bust team; PO2 Sison acted as poseur-buyer. The team met accused around 12:45 p.m., where accused purportedly produced a blue checkered pouch and handed a plastic sachet to PO2 Sison after discussing price. PO2 Sison gave marked money, gave the pre-arranged arrest signal, and arrested accused. Upon frisking, PO2 Sison recovered the marked money and a blue checkered pouch containing six heat-sealed sachets. The seized items and accused were brought to the police station; during inventory the sachets were marked (the sold sachet marked “JBS,” the other six marked “JBS1”–“JBS6”) in the presence of the media representative and two barangay kagawads. The sachets were photographed and later submitted to the provincial crime laboratory where PCI Roderos tested the items and found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The parties stipulated that PCI Roderos had custody until turnover to the court.
Defense’s Version of the Facts
Accused denied the charges and testified that he was at Rommel Baldonado’s farm working when police requested his presence at the station; upon arrival he and Rommel were detained. He alleged that at the police station he and Rommel were ordered to point at and admit ownership of sachets seen on a table; accused claimed he only complied out of fear. The defense emphasized alleged fabrication and denied that the sachets were seized from accused. The defense did not contest the forensic result but disputed the manner and circumstances of seizure and the chain of custody.
RTC Findings and Rationale
The RTC credited the prosecution’s testimony, finding a complete and credible narrative of the buy‑bust from offer to delivery and payment. The RTC held that the prosecution proved illegal sale and that mere possession of regulated drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge (animus possidendi), thus supporting the possession conviction. The trial court relied on the presumption of regularity in official acts because the accused’s claim of frame-up was uncorroborated. Accordingly, the RTC convicted and sentenced the accused in both cases.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. It found that testimonial, documentary, and object evidence supported the findings of illegal sale and possession and that the prosecution adequately accounted for each link in the chain of custody from seizure to receipt by the forensic chemist. The CA rejected accused’s claim of frame-up and maintained that the presumption of regularity in official acts stood unoverturned.
Legal Elements and Evidentiary Requirements
The Supreme Court restated the elements required for conviction: for illegal sale, identity of buyer and seller, object and consideration, and delivery and payment; for illegal possession, proof that the accused possessed an object identified as dangerous drugs, that possession was unauthorized, and that the accused freely and consciously possessed the drugs. The Court emphasized the need to establish the identity of the seized drug with moral certainty and to show an unbroken chain of custody to obviate doubts about identity or tampering.
Chain of Custody and Marking Requirements
The Court emphasized marking as the first and critical stage of the chain of custody. It reviewed statutory and regulatory frameworks: IRR Section 21(a) of RA 9165 (requiring immediate inventory and photography in the presence of the accused or representative, a media representative, DOJ or NPS representative as applicable, and an elected public official), Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 (requiring proper marking of seized drugs), and related jurisprudence (including Nisperos). The Court reiterated the guidance that marking must be: (1) immediately upon confiscation, (2) at the place of confiscation, and (3) in the presence of the offender (unless the offender eluded arrest). Where deviations occur, the prosecution must acknowledge non‑compliance and prove justifiable grounds for it and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
Application of Law to the Facts — Supreme Court Analysis
The Supreme Court found it undisputed that the poseur-buyer did not mark the seized items immediately upon confiscation; m
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 258316)
Nature of the Case
- Appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 19 November 2020 (CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 12008) affirming the Joint Decision of Branch 38, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose City, Nueva Ecija dated 06 September 2018.
- Criminal prosecution for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), in Criminal Case Nos. 4970-2017-P and 4971-2017-P.
- Supreme Court decision rendered November 20, 2023 (G.R. No. 258316), authored by Justice Zalameda, finding the appeal meritorious and reversing the lower courts’ convictions.
Parties and Counsel/Panel Information
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Accused-Appellant: Norberto Verdadero y Pimentel.
- RTC Decision penned by Presiding Judge Leo Cecilio D. Bautista (Branch 38, RTC San Jose City).
- CA Decision penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurred in by Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Carlito B. Calpatura.
- Supreme Court Decision authored by Justice Zalameda; Chief Justice Gesmundo and Justices Hernando, Rosario, and Marquez concurred.
Charges and Accusatory Allegations (Informations)
- Criminal Case No. 4970-2017-P:
- Charged with illegal sale of a dangerous drug (Section 5, Article II, RA 9165).
- Allegation: On or about 27 September 2017, in Brgy. Ganduz, Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had in his possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), weighing 0.02 gram, and sold the same to a poseur buyer without authority.
- Criminal Case No. 4971-2017-P:
- Charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Section 11, Article II, RA 9165).
- Allegation: On or about 27 September 2017, in Brgy. Ganduz, Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, accused had in his possession, custody and control six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), weighing respectively 0.01 g, 0.04 g, 0.06 g, 0.02 g, 0.07 g and 0.03 g, without authority.
Procedural Posture and Plea
- Accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" upon arraignment.
- After pre-trial, trial on the merits proceeded.
- RTC convicted; CA affirmed; accused appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the entire case and reversed.
Factual Narrative as Presented by the Prosecution
- Confidential informant reported accused-appellant’s alleged illegal drug activities to the Pantabangan Police Station at about 8:30 a.m. on 27 September 2017.
- Police Senior Inspector Melchor T. Pereja formed a buy-bust team. Designations: PO2 Sison as poseur-buyer; PO1 Vir-vic Bautista and PO1 Joselito Ramos as immediate backup.
- The team met the confidential informant; accused-appellant arrived about 12:45 p.m., shook hands with the informant who introduced PO2 Sison as a friend.
- An alleged offer/conversation: accused-appellant asked PO2 Sison “Utol, ilang bato ba ang kukunin mo?” and PO2 Sison replied “Halagang limang daang piso, panggamit lang.” Accused produced a blue checkered pouch, handed a plastic sachet of suspected shabu to PO2 Sison; marked money was delivered in return.
- PO2 Sison executed the pre-arranged signal (placing hand on accused’s shoulder); back-up officers arrested accused-appellant.
- Upon frisking, PO2 Sison recovered the marked money and a blue checkered pouch containing six heat-sealed plastic sachets of suspected shabu.
- Items and accused were brought to the police station for post-arrest procedures.
- At the station, PO2 Sison marked: the sachet alleged sold with “JBS”; the six sachets allegedly recovered from accused with “JBS1” to “JBS6.” Photographs and inventory were taken in the presence of media representative Leovigildo Uera and Barangay Kagawads Saturnina Ordoña and Angelita Sapigao, per the receipt/inventory.
- PO2 Sison brought seized sachets to the Provincial Crime Laboratory Office in Cabanatuan where they were received by PCI Emelda B. Roderos; laboratory examination tested the substance in the seven sachets positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
- Parties stipulated that PCI Roderos kept custody of the specimens until turned over to the court.
Defense Version Presented at Trial
- Accused-appellant denied commission of the offenses.
- He claimed that on the afternoon of 27 September 2017 he was working at Rommel Baldonado’s farm as a farmer and piggery caretaker; a policeman asked him to go to the precinct purportedly to speak to the police chief; upon arrival he and Rommel were detained.
- Accused alleged that when brought out of detention they saw Barangay Kagawads Saturnina and Angelita near a table with small plastic sachets of suspected shabu and were ordered by police to point at and admit ownership of the drugs; accused complied out of fear.
- The parties stipulated that Kagawad Angelita witnessed the inventory but did not see how the items were recovered and marked.
Findings and Reasoning of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
- RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:
- Violation of Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 (illegal sale): sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
- Violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 (illegal possession): sentenced to imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and a fine of P300,000.00.
- RTC rationale:
- Prosecution testimony established the buy-bust operation sequence: contact, offer, payment/promise of consideration, and delivery of the illegal drug.
- Possession of seven sachets supported conviction for illegal possession; mere possession of regulated drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi.
- Credibility favored the positive declaration of the police officer