People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Bocadi y Apatan, et al.

A buy-bust operation conducted by the NBI is not invalid for lack of PDEA participation where coordination with PDEA is shown, and the non-presentation of marked money does not defeat a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs so long as the sale and corpus delicti are proved. Receipt of the marked money by one who did not deliver the drug may establish conspiracy with the seller.

Alberto Baticolon y Ramirez and Rodolfo Bocadi y Apatan were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, to an NBI poseur buyer; Bocadi was separately charged under Section 11 for illegal possession. The charges were governed by the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which transferred and integrated certain drug enforcement units into the PDEA while preserving the investigative powers of the NBI and PNP, and which prescribes the custody and disposition of seized drugs through its implementing rules.

At around 4:30 p.m. on March 1, 2005, Special Investigator Arnaldo Fineza and SRA Miguel Dungog of the National Bureau of Investigation received information from a confidential asset about the open sale of shabu in Barangay Looc. After verifying the information, a team was formed for a buy-bust operation, with SI Fineza designated as poseur buyer to handle the marked money. A briefing was conducted, and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency was informed of the operation. SI Fineza, accompanied by two informants, proceeded to Barangay Looc.

At the target area, the group met four men, one of whom the informant identified as Baticolon. A man later identified as Bocadi offered them shabu, leading to an agreement to purchase ₱300 worth of the drug. Bocadi went inside a house and, upon returning, handed one transparent sachet of suspected shabu to SI Fineza. Simultaneously, SI Fineza handed the marked bills to Baticolon, who was nearer to him. The group immediately arrested Bocadi; Baticolon and the other suspects scattered. SI Fineza and one informant pursued Baticolon, caught him inside a nearby house, and brought him back to the locus criminis. SI Fineza informed the accused of the nature of their arrest and their constitutional rights, then pre-marked the sachet of suspected shabu. He searched Bocadi and found another sachet of suspected shabu, which he also pre-marked, and recovered the marked money from Baticolon after searching his person.

The suspects and the seized and recovered items were brought to the NBI Office, where they were photographed and inventoried. The inventory was prepared, signed, and witnessed by SkyCable media man Juancho Gallarde, Barangay Looc Kagawad Rogelio Talavera, Agent Dungog, and PDEA representative SPO1 Manuel Sanchez. The seized items were then brought to the Negros Oriental PNP Provincial Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination. The tests showed that the contents of the two confiscated sachets were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, and the urine samples from the two accused also confirmed the presence of shabu.

Both accused denied the allegations. Baticolon claimed that on March 1, 2005, he was resting in his house when he heard someone call his name; when he responded, Walter Adarna barged inside, yanked him out, punched him on the stomach, and told him that he could finally exact revenge. Walter, allegedly a known police asset with whom Baticolon had a previous altercation, bodily searched Baticolon and took his wallet. Baticolon was then handcuffed and brought to the NBI office together with Bocadi. Baticolon testified that Bocadi came into the picture only when Walter asked Bocadi to pinpoint Baticolon's house. Defense witness May-May Artus, Baticolon's neighbor, corroborated his version and claimed to have seen the entire incident.

The trial court credited SI Fineza's testimony as positive, clear, and credible, especially because he remained steadfast and unwavering during cross-examination, and found it sufficient for a finding of guilt. It gave little weight to May-May Artus's testimony because she buckled on cross-examination, admitted that she could not remember the description of the apprehending officer who accompanied the informant, and was not very sure of the details of the arrest of Baticolon and Bocadi. The trial court also found that Baticolon and Bocadi were caught in flagrante delicto in a valid buy-bust operation and that their conduct revealed a common design or community of interest.

• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation and PDEA Coordination: Baticolon questioned the validity of the buy-bust operation, contending that with the enactment of R.A. No. 9165, all anti-drug operations must be coordinated with the PDEA and only specially trained and competent drug enforcement personnel may conduct drug enforcement operations; he argued that the NBI's operation was highly questionable because the NBI is neither a deputized agent of the PDEA nor is buy-bust operations its primary mandate.
• Insufficiency of Evidence and Non-Presentation of Marked Money: Baticolon submitted that the evidence against him was insufficient for conviction, especially because the prosecution did not present the marked money.
• Denial and Frame-Up: Baticolon denied the allegations and claimed that he was framed up, asserting that Walter Adarna, a known police asset with whom he had a previous altercation, forcibly took him from his house, punched him, searched him, and took his wallet before bringing him to the NBI office.

• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: Whether the trial courts erred in upholding the existence and validity of the buy-bust operation conducted by the NBI.
• Conspiracy: Whether the trial courts erred in ruling that conspiracy to sell illegal drugs was established by the prosecution.
• Sufficiency of Evidence / Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the trial courts erred in convicting Baticolon of the crime charged despite the fact that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: No. The trial courts did not err in upholding the buy-bust operation; R.A. No. 9165 does not make an NBI arrest without PDEA participation illegal, and coordination with the PDEA was established before and after the arrests.
• Conspiracy: No. Conspiracy was established; although Baticolon did not offer or deliver the shabu, his receipt of the marked money gave rise to the inference that he connived with the seller.
• Sufficiency of Evidence / Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No. Conviction was proper; the elements of illegal sale were proved, the defenses of denial and frame-up failed, the marked money need not be presented, and the chain of custody was unbroken.

• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: In illegal sale, the essential elements are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction. The prosecution established a valid buy-bust operation with SI Fineza as buyer and Baticolon, in connivance with Bocadi, as sellers; the plastic sachet containing shabu as the object; ₱300 as consideration; and the delivery and payment as testified to by prosecution witnesses. Baticolon's denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses, especially because he and his cohort were caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate buy-bust operation; denial and frame-up, like alibi, are viewed with disfavor as easily concocted and common defenses in dangerous drugs prosecutions. On the PDEA issue, Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 was cited. People vs. Sta. Maria ruled that a buy-bust operation made without PDEA participation does not violate the constitutional right against illegal arrest; nothing in R.A. No. 9165 remotely indicates an intention to make an arrest without PDEA participation illegal or evidence obtained pursuant thereto inadmissible, and the law did not deprive the PNP of the power to make arrests. Here, coordination with the PDEA was established prior to the buy-bust operation and even after the arrests, so the arrests by the NBI were legal and the evidence seized was admissible.
• Conspiracy: SI Fineza's testimony established not only the fact of sale but also that Baticolon and Bocadi acted in concert. Bocadi offered shabu, went inside a house, returned, and handed a sachet to SI Fineza; SI Fineza then gave the marked money to Baticolon. After Bocadi was arrested, Baticolon ran but was caught, and the marked money was recovered from him. The trial court found SI Fineza's testimony positive, clear, and credible, especially because he remained steadfast and unwavering on cross-examination, and gave little weight to May-May Artus's testimony because she buckled on cross-examination, could not remember the apprehending officer's description, and was unsure of the details of the arrest. Although Baticolon was not the one who offered and delivered the shabu to the poseur buyer, his act of thereafter receiving the marked money gave rise to the inference that he was in connivance with the seller. No person in his right mind would receive and keep money given in payment for an illegal drug unless he is part of such sale. The fact that the ₱300 was found still in Baticolon's possession after the arrest further supported the conspiracy.
• Sufficiency of Evidence / Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The presentation of the marked money is not essential to the validity of an arrest or to a conviction for illegal sale. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation; it is sufficient to show that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti in evidence. These were done and proved by the prosecution. The prosecution also established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs: SI Fineza pre-marked the items seized and brought them to the NBI office for photograph and inventory; the inventory was conducted and photographed in the presence of a SkyCable media man, a barangay kagawad, and a PDEA representative; a photograph of the accused with the seized items was taken; SI Fineza prepared a written request for laboratory examination and delivered the request and seized item to the Negros Oriental PNP Provincial Crime Laboratory; PSI Llena received them and conducted the chemistry examination; and Chemistry Report No. D-039-05 certified that the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The substance tested was the same item marked, offered in evidence as Exhibit "D" 17494, and positively identified during trial by SI Fineza as the very same item sold by and taken from Bocadi during the buy-bust operation. The integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof of tampering; the appellant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. Baticolon failed to present any plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part of the arresting officers, and he did not even question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses; his appeal harped primarily on the lack of a PDEA-initiated operation and the non-presentation of the marked money. Finally, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 imposes life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and the penalty imposed on Baticolon conformed to this provision.

• Buy-bust operation and PDEA coordination — Under Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165, the NBI and PNP retain investigative powers, and nothing in the law makes an arrest without PDEA participation illegal or the evidence obtained inadmissible. A buy-bust operation conducted by the NBI is valid where coordination with the PDEA is shown, as it was in this case before and after the arrests.
• Elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs — The prosecution must establish (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction. The Court applied this to affirm the conviction because the sale and corpus delicti were proved.
• Conspiracy inferred from receipt of marked money — Although an accused did not offer or deliver the drug to the poseur buyer, the act of receiving the marked money gives rise to the inference that he connived with the seller. No person in his right mind would receive and keep money given in payment for an illegal drug unless he is part of the sale. This inference, coupled with recovery of the marked money from Baticolon, established conspiracy.
• Non-presentation of marked money — The presentation of the marked money is not essential to the validity of an arrest or to a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation; it is sufficient to show that the illicit transaction took place and to present the corpus delicti in court. The Court applied this to reject Baticolon's insufficiency argument.
• Chain of custody and presumption of integrity — The prosecution must show by record or testimony that the integrity of the seized evidence has not been compromised by accounting for its continuous whereabouts from the time it came into the possession of the officers until it was tested in the laboratory. The integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved absent bad faith, ill will, or proof of tampering; the accused bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers. The Court found an unbroken chain and no ill motive.
• Defense of denial and frame-up — Denial and frame-up, like alibi, are viewed with disfavor because they can easily be concocted and are common defenses in dangerous drugs prosecutions. They cannot outweigh the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses. The Court applied this to reject Baticolon's defense.

• "In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the prosecution is able to establish the following essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction." — This passage states the essential elements of illegal sale and the acts that consummate the buy-bust transaction, forming the core rule applied to affirm the conviction.
• "It is clear from the aforesaid issuance that the presentation of the marked money is not essential in the validity of a arrest. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation. It is sufficient to show that the illicit transaction did take place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti in evidence." — This passage rejects Baticolon's argument that the non-presentation of the marked money rendered the evidence insufficient.
• "As correctly noted by the appellate court, although baticolon was not the one who offered and delivered the shabu to the poseur buyer, his act in thereafter receiving the marked money gives rise to the inference that he was in connivance with the seller." — This passage articulates the basis for finding conspiracy despite Baticolon not being the one who delivered the drug.
• "The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Appellant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties." — This passage defines the presumption of integrity in the chain of custody and the burden on the accused to overcome it.

• People vs. Sta. Maria, 545 Phil. 520, 530-531 (2007) — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that a buy-bust operation made without PDEA participation does not violate the constitutional right against illegal arrest; R.A. No. 9165 does not make an arrest without PDEA participation illegal or evidence obtained pursuant thereto inadmissible, and the law did not deprive the PNP of the power to make arrests.
• People vs. Midenilla, et al., 645 Phil. 587, 601 (2010), citing People vs. Guiara, G.R. No. 186497, 616 Phil. 290, 302 (2009) — Cited for the essential elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and the rule that the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur buyer and receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction.
• People vs. Hernandez, et al., 607 Phil. 617, 635 (2009) — Cited for the rule that the defenses of denial and frame-up are invariably viewed with disfavor and cannot prevail over positive assertions of prosecution witnesses.
• People vs. Yung, 467 Phil. 492, 507 (2004) — Cited for the rule that the presentation of marked money is not essential; it is sufficient to show that the illicit transaction took place and to present the corpus delicti.
• Mallillin vs. People, 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008), citing Graham vs. State, 255 N.E2d 652, 655 — Cited for the chain-of-custody requirement that the state account for the continuous whereabouts of the object evidence from possession until laboratory testing.
• People vs. Miranda, 560 Phil. 795, 810 (2007) — Cited for the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the accused's burden to show tampering or meddling.
• People vs. Macabalang, 538 Phil. 136, 155 (2006) — Cited for the principle that absent a plausible reason to impute ill motive to arresting officers, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit.

• Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Penalizes the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs, including methamphetamine hydrochloride, and imposes life imprisonment to death and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000. The Court applied it to sustain Baticolon's penalty of life imprisonment and ₱500,000 fine.
• Section 86, R.A. No. 9165 — Provides for the transfer, absorption, and integration of drug enforcement units into the PDEA while preserving the investigative powers of the NBI and PNP; it also states that the PDEA shall be the lead agency when an NBI, PNP, or task force investigation violates the Act, and that the NBI, PNP, and Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA. The Court used it to reject the argument that the NBI buy-bust was invalid for lack of PDEA participation.
• Section 21(a), Article II, IRR of R.A. No. 9165 — Requires the apprehending officer or team to physically inventory and photograph the seized drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official; non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not invalidate the seizure and custody if the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved. The Court cited it in addressing the custody and disposition of the seized drugs and the non-presentation of marked money.
• Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Penalizes illegal possession of dangerous drugs; Bocadi was separately charged under this provision for possessing 0.17 gram of shabu. The Court mentioned it in the factual antecedents, but the conviction of Baticolon on appeal concerned Section 5.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court. The Court resolved the appeal under this Rule.

Justice Jose Portugal P. Perez (ponente); Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno; Associate Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.