PEOPLE v. REYMAN ENDAYA Y LAIG

FACTS:

The appellant, Reyman Endaya y Laig, was accused of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. SPO4 Moriel Benedicto approached the appellant and accused him of selling shabu. Appellant denied the accusation but was apprehended by the police officers. A body search was conducted, and a sachet of shabu was found in appellant's pocket. Appellant claimed that the police officers planted the evidence and that his constitutional rights were violated. He further alleged that the police officers did not conduct an inventory of the seized items in his presence. Appellant also denied knowing the civilian asset who allegedly bought shabu from him.

The prosecution presented evidence that two police officers approached the appellant while he was drinking beer at a bar. SPO4 Benedicto allegedly punched appellant and forced him into their car. The police officers threatened to kill appellant unless he reveals the name of the drug pusher. Appellant claimed he did not know any drug pusher. The police officers drove around town before taking appellant to the police station. At the station, appellant was placed in jail and punched again by one of the police officers. The police officers showed him plastic sachets allegedly found in his wallet and took photographs. Appellant signed a document without reading it or receiving legal assistance. Appellant did not file a case against the police officers due to his incarceration and lack of knowledge of the procedure.

The trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, stating that the prosecution successfully proved the elements of the crimes charged. The court also found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and his rights were violated during the arrest and seizure process. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant had the burden to prove tampering or meddling with the evidence, which he failed to do. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the guilt of the appellant for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Whether or not the arresting officers complied with the requirements of Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 on the inventory of the items seized from the accused.

  3. Whether the apprehending officers complied with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

  4. Whether strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is necessary for the admissibility of seized items as evidence.

  5. Whether the chain of custody of the confiscated drugs was unbroken.

  6. Whether the signature of the accused on the "Receipt for Property Seized" is admissible in evidence.

  7. Whether the signed receipt of property seized is admissible as evidence.

  8. Whether the plastic sachets of shabu are admissible as evidence against the appellant.

RULING:

  1. The appeal lacks merit; hence, we sustain the judgment of conviction.

  2. The Court held that there was compliance with the requirements of Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The inventory of the seized items was completed immediately after the arrest and at the place where the accused was arrested. While the marking of the seized sachet of shabu was done at the police station, this was allowed under the saving clause provided in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165. It was also ruled that the presence of a representative from the Department of Justice during the inventory was not necessary, and the presence of the Clerk of Court, who is a representative of the Supreme Court, was sufficient.

  3. The apprehending officers complied with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165. They conducted a physical inventory of the drugs confiscated from the appellant in the presence of the accused, media representatives, and elected public officials. They also took a photograph of the accused together with the seized items. The seized plastic sachets were marked by the police officer before they were forwarded to the crime laboratory for examination. The Court held that the marking of the seized items at the police station is sufficient compliance with the requirement of "marking upon immediate confiscation."

  4. Strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is not necessary as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds does not render void and invalid the seizure and custody of the items, as long as their integrity and evidentiary value are preserved.

  5. The Court of Appeals (CA) correctly ruled that the chain of custody was unbroken, thereby ensuring the integrity of the drugs seized. There is no question as to the integrity of the evidence since both police officers were able to identify the drugs with certainty when these were presented in court. The evidence seized from the accused were the same ones tested, introduced, and testified to in open court. The testimonies of the police officers established that the drugs were handed over by the poseur buyer to one of the officers at the crime scene and remained in his possession until they reached the police station. The drugs were marked, turned over to the police investigator, and later examined at the crime laboratory. The sachets with identifying marks intact were then presented in court. The presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved is upheld unless the accused shows bad faith, ill will, or tampering with the evidence. In this case, the accused failed to show such circumstances.

  6. The signature of the accused on the "Receipt for Property Seized" is inadmissible in evidence as it was obtained without the assistance of counsel. The accused was not assisted by a lawyer when he signed the receipt, and therefore, it cannot be admitted as his act of signing the receipt is a form of confession or admission. The signature of the accused on the receipt is a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged, hence the constitutional safeguard requiring the presence of counsel must be observed.

  7. The signed receipt of property seized is inadmissible as evidence. However, the evidentiary value of the receipt is irrelevant because there is ample evidence proving the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  8. The plastic sachets of shabu are admissible as evidence against the appellant. The appellant's warrantless arrest was made in flagrante delicto, and the police officers personally witnessed the exchange between the appellant and the poseur-buyer of the drugs. The search of the appellant and the seizure of the drugs were valid incidents of a lawful arrest.

PRINCIPLES:

  • To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the essential elements of the crime must be established, including the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, consideration for the sale, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment for it.

  • The commission of illegal sale merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.

  • In a buy-bust operation, it is necessary to present proof that the transaction or sale took place, as well as the corpus delicti as evidence in court.

  • The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs include the accused has actual or constructive possession of a dangerous drug, the accused has knowledge that the drug is in his or her possession, and the drug is illegal or prohibited.

  • The guilt of the accused for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  • For the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following requisites must concur: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.

  • To ascertain that the illegal drugs presented in court are the ones actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must show that: (a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied with or falls within the saving clause provided in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) there was an unbroken link in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated items.

  • The presence of a representative from the Department of Justice during the inventory is not necessary, and the presence of the Clerk of Court, who is a representative of the Supreme Court, is sufficient.

  • Compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165, including the physical inventory, photograph, and marking of seized items, is necessary to establish that a legitimate buy-bust operation was conducted.

  • The physical inventory and photograph may be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served, or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team.

  • Non-compliance with the strict requirements of Section 21 will not automatically render the seized items inadmissible as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are properly preserved.

  • The most important factor in the chain of custody is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

  • The prosecution must prove with unwavering exactitude that the substance confiscated from the suspect is the same substance presented in court.

  • The marking of seized items by the police officer is a form of distinguishing them from each other and establishing their identity as evidence.

  • The chain of custody of seized drugs must be established to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The prosecution must prove that the drugs seized from the accused were the same ones tested, introduced, and testified to in court. Unless the accused can show bad faith, ill will, or tampering with the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved will be upheld.

  • The signature of an accused on a receipt for property seized is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel. The accused's signature on such a receipt is considered a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged, and therefore, the constitutional safeguard requiring the presence of counsel must be observed.

  • The inadmissibility of the receipt of property seized does not affect the admissibility of other evidence proving the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • A warrantless arrest under the circumstance of in flagrante delicto is valid when the arresting officer personally witnesses the overt act indicating that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed.

  • A search conducted as an incident of a lawful arrest does not need a warrant for its validity.