People of the Philippines vs. Reyman Endaya y Laig

A conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs may be sustained even if the accused signed the Receipt for Property Seized without assistance of counsel, provided the prosecution independently establishes the elements of the offenses and preserves the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti; strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not required where the chain of custody remains unbroken. A warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto is valid when the accused commits the crime in the presence of the arresting officers, and the search incident thereto is lawful.

Reyman Endaya y Laig was charged under two informations before the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City, Branch 12, for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The offenses carry penalties of life imprisonment and fine, and Section 21 of the same law governs the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs. R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.

Reyman Endaya y Laig was charged under two separate informations before the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City, Branch 12: Criminal Case No. 0098-2003 for illegal possession of eight small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu with a total weight of 0.32 gram, and Criminal Case No. 0099-2003 for illegal sale of one small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu weighing 0.04 gram, both committed on or about November 20, 2002 at Barangay 2-A, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas.

On November 11, 2002, police operatives of the Mataasnakahoy Police Station, acting on a report from a barangay official that appellant was involved in illegal drug activities, conducted surveillance operations on him. A week of surveillance confirmed the report, and on November 20, 2002, a team composed of SPO4 Moriel Benedicto, SPO3 Nestor Babadilla, and PO2 Edwin Chavez was formed to perform a buy-bust operation. A civilian asset, armed with five ₱100.00 bills as marked money, acted as poseur-buyer.

On board a car from the police station, the operatives and the civilian asset proceeded to the Golden Luck Beer Garden at Barangay 2-A, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas. At a distance of about ten to fifteen meters from the beer house, the civilian asset alighted and proceeded on foot to the establishment where appellant was a regular customer. The buy-bust team positioned themselves outside the restaurant. Appellant subsequently arrived and approached the civilian asset, and the two talked for a while. The police operatives then saw the civilian asset hand the marked money to appellant, who in turn handed something to the former that later turned out to be a plastic sachet containing shabu. After receiving the sachet, the civilian asset touched his head as the pre-arranged signal that the transaction had been completed. The police officers immediately approached appellant, introduced themselves as police officers, and informed him that he was under arrest for selling shabu. Appellant was informed of his constitutional rights in Tagalog and then frisked by SPO3 Babadilla and PO2 Chavez for any deadly weapon. During the body search, SPO3 Babadilla recovered the marked money from appellant. The shabu subject of the sale was handed by the civilian asset to PO2 Chavez.

Appellant was brought to the Mataasnakahoy Police Station, where police officers again searched his body to look for an identification card. This search yielded another eight plastic sachets of shabu, found in his wallet by PO2 Chavez, who marked them by writing the figure “8” on each plastic sachet. The shabu subject of the buy-bust operation was also marked by PO2 Chavez with the same figure “8,” but he added a distinctive mark by burning the edges of the plastic sachet to distinguish it from the other eight sachets. The team thereafter conducted an inventory of the items seized from appellant in the presence of appellant, Clerk of Court Rogelio Binay of the Mataasnakahoy Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Counselor Renato Tiquiz, Barangay Captain Victorina Orosco, NGO representative Olivia Macariola, Sangguniang Bayan members Romeo Laqui and Oseña, and media representative Virgo Santiago, who all signed the receipt of property seized. A photograph of appellant and the seized items, together with the witnesses, was taken at the police station. A letter-request for laboratory examination, together with the marked sachets, was transmitted to the Philippine National Police crime laboratory. The qualitative examination conducted on the specimens yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Appellant denied the charges. He claimed that at around 7:00 in the evening of November 20, 2002, he was at home in Barangay Nangkaan, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas, watching television with his family. At around 9:00 in the evening, he left the house to go with a friend to the bus station in Lipa City to fetch his friend’s sister. From the bus station, they proceeded to the Golden Luck Beer Garden. While drinking beer inside the establishment, two police officers, one of whom was SPO4 Benedicto, approached him and invited him to go out with them to the police car. Appellant obliged, but as he was about to get into the car, SPO4 Benedicto punched him in the stomach and pushed him inside the car. SPO3 Babadilla and PO2 Chavez then joined them. According to appellant, the police officers started threatening to kill him unless he revealed the name of the drug pusher in the area. He replied that he did not know anyone selling drugs. They drove around the municipality of Mataasnakahoy three times before bringing him to the police station. Before he was allowed to get off the car, SPO3 Babadilla took his wallet and left it in the car. At the police station, he was immediately put in jail but was unable to ask the reason for his imprisonment because one of the police officers punched him again. When he was subsequently taken out of his cell, the police officers led him to a table where they showed him plastic sachets containing shabu allegedly found in his wallet. The police officers then took photographs of him and the items supposedly seized from him, although he refused to be photographed. He was also made to sign a document, which later turned out to be the inventory of property seized, without being allowed to read its contents and without the assistance of counsel. Neither did the police officers inform him of his constitutional rights. Appellant claimed that he did not file a case against the police officers because he was already incarcerated and ignorant of the procedure in filing cases.

The trial court found that the prosecution successfully proved the existence of the essential elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs and convicted appellant. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the prosecution established all the elements of the crimes beyond reasonable doubt, that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were too minor to affect their credibility, and that the identity of the corpus delicti was properly preserved and established.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Appellant argued that the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty of violations of Sections 11 and 5 of R.A. No. 9165 notwithstanding the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Inadmissible Receipt for Property Seized: Appellant contended that the Receipt for Property Seized was inadmissible because he was forced to sign it without the assistance of counsel and without being allowed to read its contents, in violation of his constitutional rights.
• Inadmissible Shabu Sachets / Unlawful Arrest and Search: Appellant argued that the sachets of shabu were inadmissible as fruits of a poisonous tree because they were obtained after an unlawful warrantless arrest and search.
• Noncompliance with Section 21: Appellant maintained that the arresting officers failed to comply with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165: the inventory was not completed immediately after his arrest and at the place where he was arrested; the sachet subject of the illegal sale was not marked at the time and place of his arrest but only at the police station; and there was no representative from the Department of Justice, as the government official present during the inventory was the Clerk of Court, a representative of the Supreme Court and not of the Department of Justice. He insisted that strict compliance with the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 is mandated by law.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: Whether the prosecution complied with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and preserved the chain of custody and identity of the corpus delicti.
• Admissibility of the Receipt for Property Seized: Whether the Receipt for Property Seized signed by appellant without assistance of counsel is admissible in evidence against him.
• Admissibility of the Shabu Sachets: Whether the sachets of shabu are inadmissible as fruits of the poisonous tree because they were obtained after an unlawful warrantless arrest and search.
• Penalties: Whether the penalties imposed for illegal sale and illegal possession are proper.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession: Yes. The prosecution established all elements beyond reasonable doubt; appellant was positively identified as the seller in a legitimate buy-bust operation, and eight sachets were found in his wallet.
• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: Yes. The required inventory and photograph were conducted with witnesses, the items were marked, forwarded to the crime laboratory within 24 hours, and identified in court; strict compliance is not necessary where integrity is preserved.
• Admissibility of the Receipt for Property Seized: No. The receipt is inadmissible because appellant signed it without counsel; it is a tacit admission. The conviction stands on other evidence.
• Admissibility of the Shabu Sachets: Yes. The warrantless arrest was valid in flagrante delicto, and the search incident to a lawful arrest was valid; the sachets are not fruits of a poisonous tree.
• Penalties: Yes. Life imprisonment and ₱500,000.00 fine for illegal sale; 12 years and one day to 20 years and ₱300,000.00 fine for illegal possession, consistent with R.A. No. 9165, R.A. No. 9346, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession: For illegal sale, the essential elements are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration for the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti in court. 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. Here, appellant was arrested in a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted after a week of surveillance. The police officers positively identified appellant as the one who sold the plastic sachet of shabu to their civilian asset, who in turn handed the marked money to appellant. Both the sachet of shabu and the marked money were presented as evidence in court. For illegal possession, the requisites are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object 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. When the police operatives searched appellant for his wallet at the police station, they found eight plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance which, upon laboratory examination, turned out to be shabu. The elements of both offenses were thus convincingly established.

• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 requires the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall sign the copies of the inventory. The IRR’s Section 21(a) provides a saving clause: noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody. The records show that the apprehending team conducted a physical inventory of the drugs confiscated from appellant, as evidenced by the Receipt for Property Seized signed by representatives from the municipal trial court, an NGO, the media, and three locally elected public officials. A photograph of appellant, the seized items, and the witnesses was taken at the police station. The items were marked by PO2 Chavez and forwarded to the crime laboratory within 24 hours. The Court held that marking at the nearest police station is allowed, and that strict compliance with Section 21 is not necessary as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The testimonies of SPO4 Benedicto and PO2 Chavez established an unbroken chain of custody: the sachet subject of the sale was handed by the civilian asset to PO2 Chavez at the crime scene; PO2 Chavez kept it until the police station and marked it; the eight sachets found in appellant’s wallet were likewise marked; the items were turned over to the police investigator and forwarded to the crime laboratory; and the marked sachets were presented in court. The identity of the corpus delicti was established with moral certainty. Unless appellant could show bad faith, ill will, or tampering, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence was preserved would be upheld, and appellant failed to discharge that burden.

• Admissibility of the Receipt for Property Seized: The signature of an accused in the receipt of property seized is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel. The signature on such a receipt is a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged; hence, the constitutional safeguard must be observed. There was no showing that appellant was assisted by counsel when he signed the Receipt for Property Seized. Thus, the receipt itself is inadmissible. However, as the Court of Appeals found, the evidentiary value of the receipt is irrelevant in light of the ample evidence proving appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution was able to prove a valid buy-bust operation, the testimonies of the arresting police officers clearly established the illegal sale and illegal possession, and the corpus delicti was presented in court and confirmed by the other members of the buy-bust team.

• Admissibility of the Shabu Sachets: Appellant’s claim that the shabu sachets were fruits of a poisonous tree because they were obtained after an unlawful warrantless arrest and search lacks merit. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court allows a warrantless arrest when, in the presence of the arresting officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. For a warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Here, SPO4 Benedicto, SPO3 Babadilla, and PO2 Chavez personally witnessed the exchange between appellant and the poseur-buyer of the marked money and the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance which subsequently tested positive for shabu. At the time he was arrested, appellant was clearly committing a crime in full view of the buy-bust team. The arrest was therefore valid. As the arresting officers were duty-bound to apprehend the culprit immediately and to search him for anything that may be used as proof of the commission of the crime, the search, being an incident of a lawful arrest, needed no warrant for its validity. The sachets of shabu are thus admissible in evidence.

• Penalties: Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, illegal sale of dangerous drugs is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00, regardless of the quantity or purity of the drug involved. Since the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited by R.A. No. 9346, only the penalties of life imprisonment and fine may be imposed. The RTC and the CA correctly imposed life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 0099-2003. Illegal possession of dangerous drugs is penalized under Section 11(3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 with imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 20 years, plus a fine ranging from ₱300,000.00 to ₱400,000.00 if the quantity involved is less than five grams. Appellant was charged with and found guilty of illegal possession of eight plastic sachets of shabu having a total weight of 0.32 gram in Criminal Case No. 0098-2003. Following the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the RTC and the CA properly sentenced appellant to suffer imprisonment of 12 years and one day as minimum to 20 years as maximum and fined him ₱300,000.00, since these penalties are within the range prescribed by law.

• Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs — Elements — To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must establish: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration for the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The sale is consummated the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. The Court applied this doctrine to affirm the conviction, as the buy-bust operation and the testimonies of the police officers established the exchange of marked money and shabu.
• Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs — Requisites — The requisites are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object 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. The Court applied this doctrine because eight sachets of shabu were found in appellant’s wallet and the laboratory examination confirmed the substance to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance — Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 requires immediate physical inventory and photograph of seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and an elected public official. Strict compliance is not necessary as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Marking upon immediate confiscation may be done at the nearest police station. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that the inventory, photograph, marking, timely laboratory submission, and in-court identification sufficiently preserved the corpus delicti.
• Presumption of Regularity in Police Handling of Evidence — The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. The burden is on the accused to overcome the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. The Court applied this doctrine because appellant failed to show any bad faith, ill will, or tampering.
• Signature on Receipt for Property Seized as Tacit Admission — The signature of an accused on a receipt of property seized is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel, because it is a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged. The Court applied this doctrine and held the Receipt for Property Seized inadmissible, but sustained the conviction on other competent evidence.
• Warrantless Arrest in Flagrante Delicto — A warrantless arrest is valid when the person to be arrested executes an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime, and such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. The Court applied this doctrine because the police officers personally witnessed appellant selling shabu to the poseur-buyer.
• Search Incident to Lawful Arrest — A lawful warrantless arrest authorizes the arresting officers to search the person arrested for anything that may be used as proof of the commission of the crime, without need of a separate warrant. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the admissibility of the shabu sachets recovered from appellant.
• Fruits of the Poisonous Tree — Evidence obtained from an unlawful search is inadmissible. The doctrine was not applied because the warrantless arrest and the search incident thereto were lawful, making the seized shabu sachets admissible.
• Penalties under R.A. No. 9165, R.A. No. 9346, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law — Illegal sale is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine, but R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the death penalty, leaving life imprisonment and fine. Illegal possession of less than five grams of shabu is punishable by 12 years and one day to 20 years and a fine of ₱300,000.00 to ₱400,000.00. The Indeterminate Sentence Law requires an indeterminate sentence where the offense is punished by another law. The Court applied these provisions to affirm the penalties imposed.

• "To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration for the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." — This passage states the canonical elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and is the ratio for affirming appellant’s conviction for the sale charge.
• "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." — This passage defines the requisites of illegal possession and was applied to the eight sachets found in appellant’s wallet.
• "It is settled that the signature of an accused in the receipt of property seized is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel. The signature of the accused on such a receipt is a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged; hence, the constitutional safeguard must be observed." — This passage is the Court’s ruling on the inadmissibility of the Receipt for Property Seized signed without counsel.
• "For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of the afore-quoted Rule, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer." — This passage states the test for a valid in flagrante delicto arrest and supports the admissibility of the seized shabu sachets.

• People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, 22 February 2012, 666 SCRA 518 — Cited for the essential elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• People vs. Llanita, G.R. No. 189817, 3 October 2012, 682 SCRA 288 — Cited for the rule that illegal sale is consummated upon delivery of the drug to the buyer.
• People vs. Soriano, G.R. No. 189843, 20 March 2013, 694 SCRA 168 — Cited for the requisites of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
• People vs. Angkob, G.R. No. 191062, 19 September 2012, 681 SCRA 414 — Cited for the requirement that the prosecution show compliance with Section 21 or the saving clause and an unbroken chain of custody.
• People vs. Oniza, G.R. No. 202709, 3 July 2013 — Cited for inventory and photograph as evidence of a legitimate buy-bust operation.
• Marquez vs. People, G.R. No. 197207, 13 March 2013, 693 SCRA 468 — Cited for the rule that marking upon immediate confiscation may be done at the nearest police station.
• People vs. Bara, G.R. No. 184808, 14 November 2011, 660 SCRA 38 — Cited for the rule that strict compliance with Section 21 is not necessary if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.
• People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 189327, 29 February 2012, 667 SCRA 357 — Cited for the presumption of integrity of evidence and the accused’s burden to show bad faith, ill will, or tampering.
• People vs. Salonga, G.R. No. 186390, 2 October 2009, 602 SCRA 783 — Cited for the requirement that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with unwavering exactitude.
• People vs. Macabalang, 538 Phil. 136 (2006) — Cited for the inadmissibility of an accused’s signature on a receipt of property seized obtained without counsel.
• People vs. Mariano, G.R. No. 191193, 14 November 2012, 685 SCRA 592 — Cited for warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto.
• Ambre vs. People, G.R. No. 191532, 15 August 2012, 678 SCRA 552 — Cited for the requisites of a valid in flagrante delicto arrest.
• People vs. Padua, G.R. No. 174097, 21 July 2010, 625 SCRA 220 — Cited for the penalties under R.A. No. 9165 in light of R.A. No. 9346 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes illegal sale of dangerous drugs with life imprisonment to death and a fine of ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00 regardless of quantity or purity. Applied to affirm the conviction and penalty in Criminal Case No. 0099-2003.
• Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Section 11(3) applies to less than five grams of shabu, imposing imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 20 years and a fine of ₱300,000.00 to ₱400,000.00. Applied to Criminal Case No. 0098-2003.
• Section 21, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Requires immediate physical inventory and photograph of seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and an elected public official. Applied; the Court found compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements.
• Section 21(a), IRR of R.A. No. 9165 — Provides the saving clause: noncompliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds does not render the seizure and custody void if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Applied to excuse strict compliance.
• Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court — Allows warrantless arrest when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. Applied to validate appellant’s warrantless arrest.
• Section 1, R.A. No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) — Requires an indeterminate sentence where the offense is punished by another law, with the maximum term not exceeding the maximum fixed by law and the minimum not less than the minimum prescribed. Applied to the illegal possession penalty.
• R.A. No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Applied to reduce the penalty for illegal sale to life imprisonment and fine.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. del Castillo, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.